<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_1615211</id>
	<title>Canada's Top Court Quashes Child Porn Warrant</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269107460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>m.ducharme writes <i>"The CBC is reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/19/supreme-court-morelli.html">quashing a search warrant used to obtain the computer</a> of a man accused of possession of child porn. 'Urbain P. Morelli maintained his charter rights were violated when police searched his computer for child pornography after a technician who had visited his home to work on the machine expressed concerns to police.' What the Slashdot community may find notable about this decision is the distinction drawn between 'accessing' and 'possessing' digital images, most particularly the recognition that a user does not 'possess' cached data. From <a href="http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc8/2010scc8.html">the decision</a>: '[35] When accessing Web pages, most Internet browsers will store on the computer's own hard drive a temporary copy of all or most of the files that comprise the Web page.  This is typically known as a "caching function" and the location of the temporary, automatic copies is known as the "cache."  While the configuration of the caching function varies and can be modified by the user, cached files typically include images and are generally discarded automatically after a certain number of days, or after the cache grows to a certain size. [36] On my view of possession, the automatic caching of a file to the hard drive does not, without more, constitute possession.  While the cached file might be in a  "place" over which the computer user has control, in order to establish possession, it is necessary to satisfy <em>mens rea</em> or fault requirements as well.  Thus, it must be shown that the file was knowingly stored and retained through the cache.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>m.ducharme writes " The CBC is reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision quashing a search warrant used to obtain the computer of a man accused of possession of child porn .
'Urbain P. Morelli maintained his charter rights were violated when police searched his computer for child pornography after a technician who had visited his home to work on the machine expressed concerns to police .
' What the Slashdot community may find notable about this decision is the distinction drawn between 'accessing ' and 'possessing ' digital images , most particularly the recognition that a user does not 'possess ' cached data .
From the decision : ' [ 35 ] When accessing Web pages , most Internet browsers will store on the computer 's own hard drive a temporary copy of all or most of the files that comprise the Web page .
This is typically known as a " caching function " and the location of the temporary , automatic copies is known as the " cache .
" While the configuration of the caching function varies and can be modified by the user , cached files typically include images and are generally discarded automatically after a certain number of days , or after the cache grows to a certain size .
[ 36 ] On my view of possession , the automatic caching of a file to the hard drive does not , without more , constitute possession .
While the cached file might be in a " place " over which the computer user has control , in order to establish possession , it is necessary to satisfy mens rea or fault requirements as well .
Thus , it must be shown that the file was knowingly stored and retained through the cache .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>m.ducharme writes "The CBC is reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision quashing a search warrant used to obtain the computer of a man accused of possession of child porn.
'Urbain P. Morelli maintained his charter rights were violated when police searched his computer for child pornography after a technician who had visited his home to work on the machine expressed concerns to police.
' What the Slashdot community may find notable about this decision is the distinction drawn between 'accessing' and 'possessing' digital images, most particularly the recognition that a user does not 'possess' cached data.
From the decision: '[35] When accessing Web pages, most Internet browsers will store on the computer's own hard drive a temporary copy of all or most of the files that comprise the Web page.
This is typically known as a "caching function" and the location of the temporary, automatic copies is known as the "cache.
"  While the configuration of the caching function varies and can be modified by the user, cached files typically include images and are generally discarded automatically after a certain number of days, or after the cache grows to a certain size.
[36] On my view of possession, the automatic caching of a file to the hard drive does not, without more, constitute possession.
While the cached file might be in a  "place" over which the computer user has control, in order to establish possession, it is necessary to satisfy mens rea or fault requirements as well.
Thus, it must be shown that the file was knowingly stored and retained through the cache.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551396</id>
	<title>This is progress</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1269116880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Next, can we get courts to consider <b>deleted</b> files, snippets, or unexpected objects in an archive, or on a FTP server, downloaded (but never reviewed) not to be possessed next?
</p><p>
In particular, if some unknown user uploads an illegal file to a public FTP server's public-writable uploads directory (for whatever reason), and the FTP server operator deletes the file,  when another FTP server reports it to them, or when reviewing to move from new uploads dir to a suitable place.
The FTP server operator, and the person who reported the incident <b>ought</b> to be indemnified, assuming they either didn't know about, or fully destroyed the object.
</p><p>
I'd say and they 'reported the incident to authorities',  but that is difficult to do, because authorities don't provide a standard online form for uploading suspicious objects and reporting circumstances behind them -----</p><p>also  reporting to authorities in itself would seem to be so dangerous to the reporting person legally, since the reporter and possibly other entities <b>did come to handle</b> the illegal file accidentally in that case -- (risk of causing themselves to be severely inconvenienced by being subject to investigation themselves), that they should be held blameless even if they do not report to authorities  out of fear.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next , can we get courts to consider deleted files , snippets , or unexpected objects in an archive , or on a FTP server , downloaded ( but never reviewed ) not to be possessed next ?
In particular , if some unknown user uploads an illegal file to a public FTP server 's public-writable uploads directory ( for whatever reason ) , and the FTP server operator deletes the file , when another FTP server reports it to them , or when reviewing to move from new uploads dir to a suitable place .
The FTP server operator , and the person who reported the incident ought to be indemnified , assuming they either did n't know about , or fully destroyed the object .
I 'd say and they 'reported the incident to authorities ' , but that is difficult to do , because authorities do n't provide a standard online form for uploading suspicious objects and reporting circumstances behind them -----also reporting to authorities in itself would seem to be so dangerous to the reporting person legally , since the reporter and possibly other entities did come to handle the illegal file accidentally in that case -- ( risk of causing themselves to be severely inconvenienced by being subject to investigation themselves ) , that they should be held blameless even if they do not report to authorities out of fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Next, can we get courts to consider deleted files, snippets, or unexpected objects in an archive, or on a FTP server, downloaded (but never reviewed) not to be possessed next?
In particular, if some unknown user uploads an illegal file to a public FTP server's public-writable uploads directory (for whatever reason), and the FTP server operator deletes the file,  when another FTP server reports it to them, or when reviewing to move from new uploads dir to a suitable place.
The FTP server operator, and the person who reported the incident ought to be indemnified, assuming they either didn't know about, or fully destroyed the object.
I'd say and they 'reported the incident to authorities',  but that is difficult to do, because authorities don't provide a standard online form for uploading suspicious objects and reporting circumstances behind them -----also  reporting to authorities in itself would seem to be so dangerous to the reporting person legally, since the reporter and possibly other entities did come to handle the illegal file accidentally in that case -- (risk of causing themselves to be severely inconvenienced by being subject to investigation themselves), that they should be held blameless even if they do not report to authorities  out of fear.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552246</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Max Threshold</author>
	<datestamp>1269080700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to (unless they were patently advertising what they linked to, which strikes me as unlikely).</i>

<p>It doesn't seem all that unlikely.  I've seen countless links that blatantly advertise that they're kiddie porn, especially on P2P networks.  (Of course, who knows if they're actually kiddie porn, or some kind of honeypot.)  Conversely, in fifteen years of downloading vast amounts of porn, I've only accidentally downloaded kiddie porn maybe three or four times.  Purveyors of kiddie porn are either completely up front about what they're dealing in, or they have some really sophisticated and secretive networks... and I'm inclined to doubt the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to ( unless they were patently advertising what they linked to , which strikes me as unlikely ) .
It does n't seem all that unlikely .
I 've seen countless links that blatantly advertise that they 're kiddie porn , especially on P2P networks .
( Of course , who knows if they 're actually kiddie porn , or some kind of honeypot .
) Conversely , in fifteen years of downloading vast amounts of porn , I 've only accidentally downloaded kiddie porn maybe three or four times .
Purveyors of kiddie porn are either completely up front about what they 're dealing in , or they have some really sophisticated and secretive networks... and I 'm inclined to doubt the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to (unless they were patently advertising what they linked to, which strikes me as unlikely).
It doesn't seem all that unlikely.
I've seen countless links that blatantly advertise that they're kiddie porn, especially on P2P networks.
(Of course, who knows if they're actually kiddie porn, or some kind of honeypot.
)  Conversely, in fifteen years of downloading vast amounts of porn, I've only accidentally downloaded kiddie porn maybe three or four times.
Purveyors of kiddie porn are either completely up front about what they're dealing in, or they have some really sophisticated and secretive networks... and I'm inclined to doubt the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550754</id>
	<title>"Making" in the UK, not cache-ing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds a lot worse as a charge...</p><p>"Yes M'lud, Mr Taco is charged with making these images"</p><p>sounds a lot worse than</p><p>"Yes M'lud, Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5, which, when Mr Taco visited the website in question, caused cached copies of the images in question to be stored temporarily on the hard disk, in an area of files not used or accessed directly by Mr Taco, but by the Microsoft products aforementioned"</p><p>The latter is also sounding a lot weaker if you're trying to sell yourself as tough of peedos, anything for the childruuun, vote for meeeee!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds a lot worse as a charge... " Yes M'lud , Mr Taco is charged with making these images " sounds a lot worse than " Yes M'lud , Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5 , which , when Mr Taco visited the website in question , caused cached copies of the images in question to be stored temporarily on the hard disk , in an area of files not used or accessed directly by Mr Taco , but by the Microsoft products aforementioned " The latter is also sounding a lot weaker if you 're trying to sell yourself as tough of peedos , anything for the childruuun , vote for meeeee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds a lot worse as a charge..."Yes M'lud, Mr Taco is charged with making these images"sounds a lot worse than"Yes M'lud, Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5, which, when Mr Taco visited the website in question, caused cached copies of the images in question to be stored temporarily on the hard disk, in an area of files not used or accessed directly by Mr Taco, but by the Microsoft products aforementioned"The latter is also sounding a lot weaker if you're trying to sell yourself as tough of peedos, anything for the childruuun, vote for meeeee!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550768</id>
	<title>Re:Curious to how this relates to the US.</title>
	<author>mmmmbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1269112320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's much more likely and far more reasonable that you could have cached images on your computer without your consent than contraband in your car without your consent.  The prosecution could still argue that you are responsible, but they would have a difficult time overcoming the "reasonable doubt" of innocence.  On the other hand, if you had contraband in your car, you would have to give a reason why it could be there without your knowledge.  After all, your car didn't pick them up itself.  Still, if you did so, and it was sufficient to provide a reasonable doubt (ie. just saying so isn't enough), then charges would probably be dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's much more likely and far more reasonable that you could have cached images on your computer without your consent than contraband in your car without your consent .
The prosecution could still argue that you are responsible , but they would have a difficult time overcoming the " reasonable doubt " of innocence .
On the other hand , if you had contraband in your car , you would have to give a reason why it could be there without your knowledge .
After all , your car did n't pick them up itself .
Still , if you did so , and it was sufficient to provide a reasonable doubt ( ie .
just saying so is n't enough ) , then charges would probably be dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's much more likely and far more reasonable that you could have cached images on your computer without your consent than contraband in your car without your consent.
The prosecution could still argue that you are responsible, but they would have a difficult time overcoming the "reasonable doubt" of innocence.
On the other hand, if you had contraband in your car, you would have to give a reason why it could be there without your knowledge.
After all, your car didn't pick them up itself.
Still, if you did so, and it was sufficient to provide a reasonable doubt (ie.
just saying so isn't enough), then charges would probably be dropped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554914</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not true. Accessing child porn is illegal in Canada. But the information on which the warrant was based only indicated that the technician thought the accused possessed child porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not true .
Accessing child porn is illegal in Canada .
But the information on which the warrant was based only indicated that the technician thought the accused possessed child porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not true.
Accessing child porn is illegal in Canada.
But the information on which the warrant was based only indicated that the technician thought the accused possessed child porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744</id>
	<title>Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269112140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they should stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff. It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim? Or my biggest gripes is that they are harassing kids for taking pictures of themselves and sharing them. So they are self-victimizing and we need to give them a felony and register them as a sex offender instead of just telling their parents? I had a girlfriend when I was a teenager and we did more than hold hands and *gasp* there were provocative photos sometimes. Guess I'd better turn myself in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff .
It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim ?
Or my biggest gripes is that they are harassing kids for taking pictures of themselves and sharing them .
So they are self-victimizing and we need to give them a felony and register them as a sex offender instead of just telling their parents ?
I had a girlfriend when I was a teenager and we did more than hold hands and * gasp * there were provocative photos sometimes .
Guess I 'd better turn myself in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff.
It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim?
Or my biggest gripes is that they are harassing kids for taking pictures of themselves and sharing them.
So they are self-victimizing and we need to give them a felony and register them as a sex offender instead of just telling their parents?
I had a girlfriend when I was a teenager and we did more than hold hands and *gasp* there were provocative photos sometimes.
Guess I'd better turn myself in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550780</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are basically stating for the public record that YOU PERSONALLY ACCEPT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for every last byte of data stored on your computers...</p><p>I hope your computer are stocked in a vault to which only you have physical access, and which is blocked from the net, and which doesn't have any mains power.</p><p>After all, you just stated you believe it is an absolute offence with no possible or acceptable defence.</p><p>Good of you to volunteer me for the same bullshit without first asking me though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are basically stating for the public record that YOU PERSONALLY ACCEPT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for every last byte of data stored on your computers...I hope your computer are stocked in a vault to which only you have physical access , and which is blocked from the net , and which does n't have any mains power.After all , you just stated you believe it is an absolute offence with no possible or acceptable defence.Good of you to volunteer me for the same bullshit without first asking me though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are basically stating for the public record that YOU PERSONALLY ACCEPT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for every last byte of data stored on your computers...I hope your computer are stocked in a vault to which only you have physical access, and which is blocked from the net, and which doesn't have any mains power.After all, you just stated you believe it is an absolute offence with no possible or acceptable defence.Good of you to volunteer me for the same bullshit without first asking me though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555090</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stated quite bluntly in the multiple posts I've made in this thread:  The CP was there, in front of me, and I looked to see what people were up in arms about.  Try to keep up, huh?  An educated voter is a desirable thing, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stated quite bluntly in the multiple posts I 've made in this thread : The CP was there , in front of me , and I looked to see what people were up in arms about .
Try to keep up , huh ?
An educated voter is a desirable thing , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stated quite bluntly in the multiple posts I've made in this thread:  The CP was there, in front of me, and I looked to see what people were up in arms about.
Try to keep up, huh?
An educated voter is a desirable thing, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551056</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269114660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now CP peddlers know to store their collections on your computer because you'll take the blame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now CP peddlers know to store their collections on your computer because you 'll take the blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now CP peddlers know to store their collections on your computer because you'll take the blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</id>
	<title>This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1269111900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of crap would not fly in the United States.  The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer's browser cache, but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser.  His intent was to view the images and he was too dumb to know that his browser was storing copies of the photographs.  That is enough to get a warrant and obtain an indictment.  Hell, you could get a conviction with that evidence.</p><p>I will cede that, if the user was checking email and stupidly clicked a link and sent him to some child porn site, then he would not be committing a criminal act.  If I found one site and only one page on that site were visited, then I would not pursue charges against the man.  If he has visited multiple sites over multiple days and had viewed multiple pages, then I would tell me to prepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison's Rectal Olympics games.</p><p>I have no sympathy for disgusting piece of shit that get off on child pornography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of crap would not fly in the United States .
The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer 's browser cache , but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser .
His intent was to view the images and he was too dumb to know that his browser was storing copies of the photographs .
That is enough to get a warrant and obtain an indictment .
Hell , you could get a conviction with that evidence.I will cede that , if the user was checking email and stupidly clicked a link and sent him to some child porn site , then he would not be committing a criminal act .
If I found one site and only one page on that site were visited , then I would not pursue charges against the man .
If he has visited multiple sites over multiple days and had viewed multiple pages , then I would tell me to prepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison 's Rectal Olympics games.I have no sympathy for disgusting piece of shit that get off on child pornography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of crap would not fly in the United States.
The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer's browser cache, but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser.
His intent was to view the images and he was too dumb to know that his browser was storing copies of the photographs.
That is enough to get a warrant and obtain an indictment.
Hell, you could get a conviction with that evidence.I will cede that, if the user was checking email and stupidly clicked a link and sent him to some child porn site, then he would not be committing a criminal act.
If I found one site and only one page on that site were visited, then I would not pursue charges against the man.
If he has visited multiple sites over multiple days and had viewed multiple pages, then I would tell me to prepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison's Rectal Olympics games.I have no sympathy for disgusting piece of shit that get off on child pornography.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550860</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Hojima</author>
	<datestamp>1269113040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, what was that "evidence" again? Oh yea a camera pointed to his fully clothed three year old daughter with her toys. The technician said he found 2 suspicious links (amongst the plethora of porn he had in his bookmarks). What I'm thinking is that the defendant liked petite LEGAL girls(i.e. he probably had a link that said "tiny teens" in his long list of fetishes). It's not untypical for someone to stumble on illegal porn when searching for legal porn. Sorry but this case was bullshit, and I commemorate the judge and jury on their competent choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , what was that " evidence " again ?
Oh yea a camera pointed to his fully clothed three year old daughter with her toys .
The technician said he found 2 suspicious links ( amongst the plethora of porn he had in his bookmarks ) .
What I 'm thinking is that the defendant liked petite LEGAL girls ( i.e .
he probably had a link that said " tiny teens " in his long list of fetishes ) .
It 's not untypical for someone to stumble on illegal porn when searching for legal porn .
Sorry but this case was bullshit , and I commemorate the judge and jury on their competent choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, what was that "evidence" again?
Oh yea a camera pointed to his fully clothed three year old daughter with her toys.
The technician said he found 2 suspicious links (amongst the plethora of porn he had in his bookmarks).
What I'm thinking is that the defendant liked petite LEGAL girls(i.e.
he probably had a link that said "tiny teens" in his long list of fetishes).
It's not untypical for someone to stumble on illegal porn when searching for legal porn.
Sorry but this case was bullshit, and I commemorate the judge and jury on their competent choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551032</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1269114360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he didn't. A number of browsers nowadays have a prefetch feature: they'll follow any links on a page and fetch the pages those links point to, to help speed things up when (or if) the user clicks on those links. That results in data in the cache for pages the user never visited. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he did n't .
A number of browsers nowadays have a prefetch feature : they 'll follow any links on a page and fetch the pages those links point to , to help speed things up when ( or if ) the user clicks on those links .
That results in data in the cache for pages the user never visited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he didn't.
A number of browsers nowadays have a prefetch feature: they'll follow any links on a page and fetch the pages those links point to, to help speed things up when (or if) the user clicks on those links.
That results in data in the cache for pages the user never visited. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552010</id>
	<title>Re:Is this kind of browsing routine?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269078960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff? Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.</p></div><p>Well, actually it&rsquo;s an illegal privacy violation. Like your cleaner going trough your drawers, looking for private stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff ?
Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.Well , actually it    s an illegal privacy violation .
Like your cleaner going trough your drawers , looking for private stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff?
Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.Well, actually it’s an illegal privacy violation.
Like your cleaner going trough your drawers, looking for private stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550674</id>
	<title>I wonder,</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1269111720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is in the caches on the supreme court judges' computers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is in the caches on the supreme court judges ' computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is in the caches on the supreme court judges' computers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551728</id>
	<title>Re:Is this kind of browsing routine?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sky News did an undercover investigation of computer repairers in England, and found that all but one of them browsed through the photo collection, and some of them even tried to log in with the fake Natwest Bank login details left on a word file on the disk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sky News did an undercover investigation of computer repairers in England , and found that all but one of them browsed through the photo collection , and some of them even tried to log in with the fake Natwest Bank login details left on a word file on the disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sky News did an undercover investigation of computer repairers in England, and found that all but one of them browsed through the photo collection, and some of them even tried to log in with the fake Natwest Bank login details left on a word file on the disk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640</id>
	<title>Wow, Savvy Judge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know that our legal system understood computers even that well, to distinguish browser cache "oh crap, what the hell did I just see?!" from deliberate "I done saved 3115 photos to my desktop that I probably shouldn't have".</p><p>Of, wait, it's not my legal system, it's Canada's. nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know that our legal system understood computers even that well , to distinguish browser cache " oh crap , what the hell did I just see ? !
" from deliberate " I done saved 3115 photos to my desktop that I probably should n't have " .Of , wait , it 's not my legal system , it 's Canada 's .
nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know that our legal system understood computers even that well, to distinguish browser cache "oh crap, what the hell did I just see?!
" from deliberate "I done saved 3115 photos to my desktop that I probably shouldn't have".Of, wait, it's not my legal system, it's Canada's.
nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31563152</id>
	<title>Re:The REAL problem with disseminating child porn</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only an idiot would pay for porn because EVERYTHING is available on the Internet for free. If anything decriminalizing procession would kill the market for it. Brought into the open it'd be easier for cops to find and get rid of the bastards producing this crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only an idiot would pay for porn because EVERYTHING is available on the Internet for free .
If anything decriminalizing procession would kill the market for it .
Brought into the open it 'd be easier for cops to find and get rid of the bastards producing this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only an idiot would pay for porn because EVERYTHING is available on the Internet for free.
If anything decriminalizing procession would kill the market for it.
Brought into the open it'd be easier for cops to find and get rid of the bastards producing this crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553424</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no need to get all butthurt over prison rape.  Oh wait, there is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no need to get all butthurt over prison rape .
Oh wait , there is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no need to get all butthurt over prison rape.
Oh wait, there is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550824</id>
	<title>Re:Solution for CP lovers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one" - Voltaire.</p><p>A sentiment I wholly agree with.   What if you're an innocent ole' 4chan troll, and some nerd-squad or whatever life failure for whatever reason is browsing your cache. ?  You're not a pedobear, you're just a troll who happens upon CP from tiem to tiem.</p><p>Not that any of the fine upstanding purveyors of this website would be caught dead placing their computer in the hands of incompetence to begin with.... But I think you see my point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one " - Voltaire.A sentiment I wholly agree with .
What if you 're an innocent ole ' 4chan troll , and some nerd-squad or whatever life failure for whatever reason is browsing your cache .
? You 're not a pedobear , you 're just a troll who happens upon CP from tiem to tiem.Not that any of the fine upstanding purveyors of this website would be caught dead placing their computer in the hands of incompetence to begin with.... But I think you see my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one" - Voltaire.A sentiment I wholly agree with.
What if you're an innocent ole' 4chan troll, and some nerd-squad or whatever life failure for whatever reason is browsing your cache.
?  You're not a pedobear, you're just a troll who happens upon CP from tiem to tiem.Not that any of the fine upstanding purveyors of this website would be caught dead placing their computer in the hands of incompetence to begin with.... But I think you see my point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551552</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269118260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too many Americans think it's part of being tough, and giving folks what they deserve.</p><p>Too bad too few Americans think of exactly how that makes them look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many Americans think it 's part of being tough , and giving folks what they deserve.Too bad too few Americans think of exactly how that makes them look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many Americans think it's part of being tough, and giving folks what they deserve.Too bad too few Americans think of exactly how that makes them look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551114</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1269115020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What evidence? The tech saw nothing. Unless the bookmark was labeled "Totally illegal child porn" the tech never saw anything because he never followed any of the links. Even if it was child porn links, it's not like a lot of adult websites automatically add bookmarks for you with Javascript. Oh wait, that's what those hundreds of pop ups do. Plus there were only 2 suspect links among the dozen or so adult bookmarks so who knows if he even knew what was bookmarked. Also on top of that, bookmarks are not child porn. <br> <br>

As for the camera, it was pointed at the kid and connected to a vcr. Holy shit, remind me not to take a camera to my nephews birthday party as I was going to point it at a lot of kids. To think I almost could have gone to jail over that. You don't know what he was doing and to assume the worst is irresponsible. Maybe he was trying to record home movies, maybe he was setting up a nanny cam.  Maybe he was arranging the kids toys into a pentagram and calling for the spirit of Satan. The web cam is completely innocent but was painted in a dark image by a tech that was either offended by porn links or was pregistist about a guy that view porn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What evidence ?
The tech saw nothing .
Unless the bookmark was labeled " Totally illegal child porn " the tech never saw anything because he never followed any of the links .
Even if it was child porn links , it 's not like a lot of adult websites automatically add bookmarks for you with Javascript .
Oh wait , that 's what those hundreds of pop ups do .
Plus there were only 2 suspect links among the dozen or so adult bookmarks so who knows if he even knew what was bookmarked .
Also on top of that , bookmarks are not child porn .
As for the camera , it was pointed at the kid and connected to a vcr .
Holy shit , remind me not to take a camera to my nephews birthday party as I was going to point it at a lot of kids .
To think I almost could have gone to jail over that .
You do n't know what he was doing and to assume the worst is irresponsible .
Maybe he was trying to record home movies , maybe he was setting up a nanny cam .
Maybe he was arranging the kids toys into a pentagram and calling for the spirit of Satan .
The web cam is completely innocent but was painted in a dark image by a tech that was either offended by porn links or was pregistist about a guy that view porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What evidence?
The tech saw nothing.
Unless the bookmark was labeled "Totally illegal child porn" the tech never saw anything because he never followed any of the links.
Even if it was child porn links, it's not like a lot of adult websites automatically add bookmarks for you with Javascript.
Oh wait, that's what those hundreds of pop ups do.
Plus there were only 2 suspect links among the dozen or so adult bookmarks so who knows if he even knew what was bookmarked.
Also on top of that, bookmarks are not child porn.
As for the camera, it was pointed at the kid and connected to a vcr.
Holy shit, remind me not to take a camera to my nephews birthday party as I was going to point it at a lot of kids.
To think I almost could have gone to jail over that.
You don't know what he was doing and to assume the worst is irresponsible.
Maybe he was trying to record home movies, maybe he was setting up a nanny cam.
Maybe he was arranging the kids toys into a pentagram and calling for the spirit of Satan.
The web cam is completely innocent but was painted in a dark image by a tech that was either offended by porn links or was pregistist about a guy that view porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551810</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1269077280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The technician found no such thing. What he found was a camera in a room, where there happened to be a lot of toys. In other words, the technician found reason to believe that the accused was making videos of his kid while the kid was playing. My impression from the rest of the decision is that they never did find any evidence at all that he was making porn of his kid, even though they did ultimately find child porn of other kids after they seized his computer.</p><p>Essentially, the technician found two bookmarks to "lolita porn" sites mixed in with a lot of other legal porn site bookmarks. He reported to the cops several months later, and on the strength of that the cops got a warrant. It was a really bad warrant, and deserved to be quashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The technician found no such thing .
What he found was a camera in a room , where there happened to be a lot of toys .
In other words , the technician found reason to believe that the accused was making videos of his kid while the kid was playing .
My impression from the rest of the decision is that they never did find any evidence at all that he was making porn of his kid , even though they did ultimately find child porn of other kids after they seized his computer.Essentially , the technician found two bookmarks to " lolita porn " sites mixed in with a lot of other legal porn site bookmarks .
He reported to the cops several months later , and on the strength of that the cops got a warrant .
It was a really bad warrant , and deserved to be quashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technician found no such thing.
What he found was a camera in a room, where there happened to be a lot of toys.
In other words, the technician found reason to believe that the accused was making videos of his kid while the kid was playing.
My impression from the rest of the decision is that they never did find any evidence at all that he was making porn of his kid, even though they did ultimately find child porn of other kids after they seized his computer.Essentially, the technician found two bookmarks to "lolita porn" sites mixed in with a lot of other legal porn site bookmarks.
He reported to the cops several months later, and on the strength of that the cops got a warrant.
It was a really bad warrant, and deserved to be quashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552132</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269079680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's actually a fairly easy test:</i></p><p><i>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Do you have a penis?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Do you have even the remotest access to children?</i></p><p><i>If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.</i></p><p>Sad, but true. British Airways actually has an explicit policy stating that:</p><p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]</p><p>British Airways is getting sued over it, and the guy they did it to is a deep-pocketed hedge fund manager, so things might change.</p><p>I like the part where he points out the obvious truth:</p><p><b>'Furthermore statistically children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their family. Does that mean that BA are going to ban children sitting next to their own parents?'</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually a fairly easy test :       1 .
Do you have a penis ?
      2 .
Do you have even the remotest access to children ? If you can answer yes to both of those questions , you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.Sad , but true .
British Airways actually has an explicit policy stating that : http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html [ dailymail.co.uk ] British Airways is getting sued over it , and the guy they did it to is a deep-pocketed hedge fund manager , so things might change.I like the part where he points out the obvious truth : 'Furthermore statistically children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their family .
Does that mean that BA are going to ban children sitting next to their own parents ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually a fairly easy test:
      1.
Do you have a penis?
      2.
Do you have even the remotest access to children?If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.Sad, but true.
British Airways actually has an explicit policy stating that:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html [dailymail.co.uk]British Airways is getting sued over it, and the guy they did it to is a deep-pocketed hedge fund manager, so things might change.I like the part where he points out the obvious truth:'Furthermore statistically children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their family.
Does that mean that BA are going to ban children sitting next to their own parents?
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554312</id>
	<title>Re:Curious to how this relates to the US.</title>
	<author>pdabbadabba</author>
	<datestamp>1269096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not actually true. Canada and the U.S. (like most/all other British common law countries) actually do have the same common law <em>mens rea</em> requirements for conviction of most crimes. State laws, of course, can vary in a multitude of ways but take, for example, the Model Penal Code's treatment of possession (adopted in many states):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.</p></div><p>In an MPC state, therefore, there would have to be evidence presented that you knew that the drugs were there in order to be convicted in the scenario you lay out. Of course, that doesn't always stop an overzealous cop from arresting you under those circumstances, but that is not so much a commentary on the content of our laws as on the training of our police force.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not actually true .
Canada and the U.S. ( like most/all other British common law countries ) actually do have the same common law mens rea requirements for conviction of most crimes .
State laws , of course , can vary in a multitude of ways but take , for example , the Model Penal Code 's treatment of possession ( adopted in many states ) : Possession is an act , within the meaning of this Section , if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.In an MPC state , therefore , there would have to be evidence presented that you knew that the drugs were there in order to be convicted in the scenario you lay out .
Of course , that does n't always stop an overzealous cop from arresting you under those circumstances , but that is not so much a commentary on the content of our laws as on the training of our police force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not actually true.
Canada and the U.S. (like most/all other British common law countries) actually do have the same common law mens rea requirements for conviction of most crimes.
State laws, of course, can vary in a multitude of ways but take, for example, the Model Penal Code's treatment of possession (adopted in many states):Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.In an MPC state, therefore, there would have to be evidence presented that you knew that the drugs were there in order to be convicted in the scenario you lay out.
Of course, that doesn't always stop an overzealous cop from arresting you under those circumstances, but that is not so much a commentary on the content of our laws as on the training of our police force.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551332</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1269116400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim?</p></div><p>MAFIAA of course. They would surely claims the rights of the usage of Bart Simpson, with clothes or without.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim ? MAFIAA of course .
They would surely claims the rights of the usage of Bart Simpson , with clothes or without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim?MAFIAA of course.
They would surely claims the rights of the usage of Bart Simpson, with clothes or without.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278</id>
	<title>Ridiculous decision</title>
	<author>d\_jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1269116040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone commenting here actually read TFA (specifically, the court ruling)?<br>The reasoning for why the conviction was quashed had absolutely nothing to do with cached images.  It was quashed because the police were ruled to have conducted an illegal (as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) search, despite having a search warrant to search for possession of child pornography.</p><p>Essentially, this is what happened:<br>1) Technician shows up to install an Internet connection on accused computer.<br>2) Technician notices probable child porn links in IE favourites (along with other legal porn links), and sees (legal) porn image, either on browser homepage or desktop. Technician also notices webcam hooked up to VCR (turned off at the time) directed at accused's 3 year old child.<br>3) Technician returns next day to finish work, and finds computer had been formatted.<br>4) Technician reports to social worker about possible child abuse.  Social worker in turn informs RCMP.<br>5) Police obtain search warrant based on technician's observations.<br>6) (Four months after technician's initial visit) Police search accused's home, and find child pornography.</p><p>The court essentially ruled that the technician's observations did not legally justify a search.  And I find this patently ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone commenting here actually read TFA ( specifically , the court ruling ) ? The reasoning for why the conviction was quashed had absolutely nothing to do with cached images .
It was quashed because the police were ruled to have conducted an illegal ( as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) search , despite having a search warrant to search for possession of child pornography.Essentially , this is what happened : 1 ) Technician shows up to install an Internet connection on accused computer.2 ) Technician notices probable child porn links in IE favourites ( along with other legal porn links ) , and sees ( legal ) porn image , either on browser homepage or desktop .
Technician also notices webcam hooked up to VCR ( turned off at the time ) directed at accused 's 3 year old child.3 ) Technician returns next day to finish work , and finds computer had been formatted.4 ) Technician reports to social worker about possible child abuse .
Social worker in turn informs RCMP.5 ) Police obtain search warrant based on technician 's observations.6 ) ( Four months after technician 's initial visit ) Police search accused 's home , and find child pornography.The court essentially ruled that the technician 's observations did not legally justify a search .
And I find this patently ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone commenting here actually read TFA (specifically, the court ruling)?The reasoning for why the conviction was quashed had absolutely nothing to do with cached images.
It was quashed because the police were ruled to have conducted an illegal (as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) search, despite having a search warrant to search for possession of child pornography.Essentially, this is what happened:1) Technician shows up to install an Internet connection on accused computer.2) Technician notices probable child porn links in IE favourites (along with other legal porn links), and sees (legal) porn image, either on browser homepage or desktop.
Technician also notices webcam hooked up to VCR (turned off at the time) directed at accused's 3 year old child.3) Technician returns next day to finish work, and finds computer had been formatted.4) Technician reports to social worker about possible child abuse.
Social worker in turn informs RCMP.5) Police obtain search warrant based on technician's observations.6) (Four months after technician's initial visit) Police search accused's home, and find child pornography.The court essentially ruled that the technician's observations did not legally justify a search.
And I find this patently ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551624</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269075840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What no 'thinkofthechildren' tag? I must be new here, you insensitive clod! </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What no 'thinkofthechildren ' tag ?
I must be new here , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What no 'thinkofthechildren' tag?
I must be new here, you insensitive clod! </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682</id>
	<title>Curious to how this relates to the US.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curious to how this relates to the US.  If drugs or weapons are in your car--without your knowledge--you are arrested for their possesion.  "Sorry Mr. Officer that bag of weed must have been cached.  It's just temporary."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious to how this relates to the US .
If drugs or weapons are in your car--without your knowledge--you are arrested for their possesion .
" Sorry Mr. Officer that bag of weed must have been cached .
It 's just temporary .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious to how this relates to the US.
If drugs or weapons are in your car--without your knowledge--you are arrested for their possesion.
"Sorry Mr. Officer that bag of weed must have been cached.
It's just temporary.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551682</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right and wrong. The question of whether or not he possessed child porn really had little to do with the decision. HOWEVER, the Court did write exactly what the summary quoted. So it will serve as legal precedent.</p><p>The reason why he was acquitted is because the search warrant itself was quashed. An invalid search warrant means that the subsequent search is illegal. So while you're right that the police had a search warrant, it was improperly obtained and thus rendered invalid. You made it sound like they had a valid search warrant, which is false. To issue a search warrant, police need to provide reasonable grounds to a judge as to why the search warrant is necessary or, you might be able to see this coming, warranted. This is to protect Charter rights.</p><p>The Court found that the police did NOT have reasonable grounds, and that an objective reasonable person would only have a mere suspicion that he might be creating/consuming child porn. Suspicion is NOT enough to issue a search warrant. Furthermore, it wasn't the fault of the issuing judge that the search warrant was issued. The police used misleading language and omitted important exculpatory information in their Information To Obtain (ITO, basically a warrant application). If the police had not been misleading in their ITO, the judge probably would not have issued a search warrant.</p><p>You've conveniently included some of the deceptive claims made by the police. The Court found that the following information was pertinent and exculpatory, and, taken with the situation as a whole, would serve to more than mitigate any reasons to suspect the man:<br>1) The technician did not find probable child porn links. He found links that were entitled "lolita". If you've ever seen porn, you know that the term "lolita" is used in PLENTY of legal porn productions. These are POSSIBLE child porn links, at best.<br>2) The child showed NO signs of abuse, trauma, or anything other such signs of harm. The child was fully clothed and playing with her toys.<br>3) The mother was also in the house.<br>4) From the fact that the webcam was pointed at his daughter, you CANNOT then conclude that he might be making child porn. That would make it so that every person who has a video camera and likes to take home videos of their children child porn suspects. This is ludicrous.<br>5) The technician saw legal porn. But legal porn is legal, and from Morelli's consumption of legal porn, you can't suddenly conclude that he likes illegal porn. Logically questionable, at best.</p><p>The Court found that all of the above created a situation where you may, kind of, sort of, suspect child porn production. But that would involve an AWFUL LOT of speculation. Search warrants, again, cannot be issued on the basis of suspicion or speculation, but rather reasonable grounds. Since there are no reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant and the issuing judge was misled by the police, the original search warrant was invalidated. This means that the subsequent search and all the evidence obtained cannot be introduced in the Court. Without any evidence from the search, the charges do not hold. Morelli acquitted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right and wrong .
The question of whether or not he possessed child porn really had little to do with the decision .
HOWEVER , the Court did write exactly what the summary quoted .
So it will serve as legal precedent.The reason why he was acquitted is because the search warrant itself was quashed .
An invalid search warrant means that the subsequent search is illegal .
So while you 're right that the police had a search warrant , it was improperly obtained and thus rendered invalid .
You made it sound like they had a valid search warrant , which is false .
To issue a search warrant , police need to provide reasonable grounds to a judge as to why the search warrant is necessary or , you might be able to see this coming , warranted .
This is to protect Charter rights.The Court found that the police did NOT have reasonable grounds , and that an objective reasonable person would only have a mere suspicion that he might be creating/consuming child porn .
Suspicion is NOT enough to issue a search warrant .
Furthermore , it was n't the fault of the issuing judge that the search warrant was issued .
The police used misleading language and omitted important exculpatory information in their Information To Obtain ( ITO , basically a warrant application ) .
If the police had not been misleading in their ITO , the judge probably would not have issued a search warrant.You 've conveniently included some of the deceptive claims made by the police .
The Court found that the following information was pertinent and exculpatory , and , taken with the situation as a whole , would serve to more than mitigate any reasons to suspect the man : 1 ) The technician did not find probable child porn links .
He found links that were entitled " lolita " .
If you 've ever seen porn , you know that the term " lolita " is used in PLENTY of legal porn productions .
These are POSSIBLE child porn links , at best.2 ) The child showed NO signs of abuse , trauma , or anything other such signs of harm .
The child was fully clothed and playing with her toys.3 ) The mother was also in the house.4 ) From the fact that the webcam was pointed at his daughter , you CAN NOT then conclude that he might be making child porn .
That would make it so that every person who has a video camera and likes to take home videos of their children child porn suspects .
This is ludicrous.5 ) The technician saw legal porn .
But legal porn is legal , and from Morelli 's consumption of legal porn , you ca n't suddenly conclude that he likes illegal porn .
Logically questionable , at best.The Court found that all of the above created a situation where you may , kind of , sort of , suspect child porn production .
But that would involve an AWFUL LOT of speculation .
Search warrants , again , can not be issued on the basis of suspicion or speculation , but rather reasonable grounds .
Since there are no reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant and the issuing judge was misled by the police , the original search warrant was invalidated .
This means that the subsequent search and all the evidence obtained can not be introduced in the Court .
Without any evidence from the search , the charges do not hold .
Morelli acquitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right and wrong.
The question of whether or not he possessed child porn really had little to do with the decision.
HOWEVER, the Court did write exactly what the summary quoted.
So it will serve as legal precedent.The reason why he was acquitted is because the search warrant itself was quashed.
An invalid search warrant means that the subsequent search is illegal.
So while you're right that the police had a search warrant, it was improperly obtained and thus rendered invalid.
You made it sound like they had a valid search warrant, which is false.
To issue a search warrant, police need to provide reasonable grounds to a judge as to why the search warrant is necessary or, you might be able to see this coming, warranted.
This is to protect Charter rights.The Court found that the police did NOT have reasonable grounds, and that an objective reasonable person would only have a mere suspicion that he might be creating/consuming child porn.
Suspicion is NOT enough to issue a search warrant.
Furthermore, it wasn't the fault of the issuing judge that the search warrant was issued.
The police used misleading language and omitted important exculpatory information in their Information To Obtain (ITO, basically a warrant application).
If the police had not been misleading in their ITO, the judge probably would not have issued a search warrant.You've conveniently included some of the deceptive claims made by the police.
The Court found that the following information was pertinent and exculpatory, and, taken with the situation as a whole, would serve to more than mitigate any reasons to suspect the man:1) The technician did not find probable child porn links.
He found links that were entitled "lolita".
If you've ever seen porn, you know that the term "lolita" is used in PLENTY of legal porn productions.
These are POSSIBLE child porn links, at best.2) The child showed NO signs of abuse, trauma, or anything other such signs of harm.
The child was fully clothed and playing with her toys.3) The mother was also in the house.4) From the fact that the webcam was pointed at his daughter, you CANNOT then conclude that he might be making child porn.
That would make it so that every person who has a video camera and likes to take home videos of their children child porn suspects.
This is ludicrous.5) The technician saw legal porn.
But legal porn is legal, and from Morelli's consumption of legal porn, you can't suddenly conclude that he likes illegal porn.
Logically questionable, at best.The Court found that all of the above created a situation where you may, kind of, sort of, suspect child porn production.
But that would involve an AWFUL LOT of speculation.
Search warrants, again, cannot be issued on the basis of suspicion or speculation, but rather reasonable grounds.
Since there are no reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant and the issuing judge was misled by the police, the original search warrant was invalidated.
This means that the subsequent search and all the evidence obtained cannot be introduced in the Court.
Without any evidence from the search, the charges do not hold.
Morelli acquitted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551736</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about looking at pictures of naked for the deliberated purpose of encouraging the rape of little children?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about looking at pictures of naked for the deliberated purpose of encouraging the rape of little children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about looking at pictures of naked for the deliberated purpose of encouraging the rape of little children?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551800</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Savvy Judge</title>
	<author>wrecked</author>
	<datestamp>1269077220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is.  All documents <a href="http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/ef-de/index-eng.asp" title="scc-csc.gc.ca">must be filed electronically</a> [scc-csc.gc.ca].  Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials.  There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.
<br> <br>
The SCC <a href="http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/webcasts-webdiffusions-eng.aspx" title="scc-csc.gc.ca">broadcasts select hearings over the web</a> [scc-csc.gc.ca].  The court's <a href="http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/index.html" title="umontreal.ca">decisions</a> [umontreal.ca] are all published and <a href="http://canlii.org/" title="canlii.org">searchable</a> [canlii.org] on the internet.
<br> <br>
Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case <a href="http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc13/2004scc13.html" title="canlii.org">CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada</a> [canlii.org], which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa , Ontario , you will see just how tech-savvy it really is .
All documents must be filed electronically [ scc-csc.gc.ca ] .
Every station in the court ( judges , clerks , lawyers and reporting media ) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials .
There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along .
The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web [ scc-csc.gc.ca ] .
The court 's decisions [ umontreal.ca ] are all published and searchable [ canlii.org ] on the internet .
Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada [ canlii.org ] , which considered the concept of " fair dealing " under Canada 's Copyright Act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ever get a chance to visit the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, you will see just how tech-savvy it really is.
All documents must be filed electronically [scc-csc.gc.ca].
Every station in the court (judges, clerks, lawyers and reporting media) has an embedded computer to manage the digital case materials.
There are large-screen monitors for the public gallery to follow along.
The SCC broadcasts select hearings over the web [scc-csc.gc.ca].
The court's decisions [umontreal.ca] are all published and searchable [canlii.org] on the internet.
Slashdot readers would also be interested in the 2004 case CCH v Law Society of Upper Canada [canlii.org], which considered the concept of "fair dealing" under Canada's Copyright Act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554884</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In California every time there is an "at fault" shooting by police, they claim "mens rea". FYI.</p><p>When can arrestees in the entire CA penal system claim that before the plea bargain process starts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In California every time there is an " at fault " shooting by police , they claim " mens rea " .
FYI.When can arrestees in the entire CA penal system claim that before the plea bargain process starts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In California every time there is an "at fault" shooting by police, they claim "mens rea".
FYI.When can arrestees in the entire CA penal system claim that before the plea bargain process starts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804</id>
	<title>Is this kind of browsing routine?</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1269112620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude's computer was routine?  I've fixed a lot of PC's without rifling through the users cache and image files, other than if they were infected with a virus.  Even backing up user profiles and data, I could tell you which files were infected but not what they were doing with their computer.

</p><p>Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff?  Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude 's computer was routine ?
I 've fixed a lot of PC 's without rifling through the users cache and image files , other than if they were infected with a virus .
Even backing up user profiles and data , I could tell you which files were infected but not what they were doing with their computer .
Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff ?
Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude's computer was routine?
I've fixed a lot of PC's without rifling through the users cache and image files, other than if they were infected with a virus.
Even backing up user profiles and data, I could tell you which files were infected but not what they were doing with their computer.
Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff?
Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552620</id>
	<title>possession vs. control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269083460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a computer-technical perspective, as long as the data is on your computer is a way you can, in principle, retrieve, you possess it.  But that's a far cry from being able to control it, and therefore, it should be a far cry from legal possession.</p><p>Assuming no DRM, the only practical difference between possession and control in the Internet world is "does the person know he has a local copy and does he know how to access, copy, delete, or otherwise make use of the local copy?"</p><p>A person who visits a web site and knows how to retrieve something from an on-disk cache can be considered to be in control of it.</p><p>A total-computer-n00b who clicks "save" but has no clue how to find and access or even delete the file he saved has no control over it, morally speaking.  He may have intended to be able to control it, but morally, he ceased to have control of it when he closed the web browser window or tab.</p><p>In other words, most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers shouldn't try the "but I didn't explicitly save it" defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a computer-technical perspective , as long as the data is on your computer is a way you can , in principle , retrieve , you possess it .
But that 's a far cry from being able to control it , and therefore , it should be a far cry from legal possession.Assuming no DRM , the only practical difference between possession and control in the Internet world is " does the person know he has a local copy and does he know how to access , copy , delete , or otherwise make use of the local copy ?
" A person who visits a web site and knows how to retrieve something from an on-disk cache can be considered to be in control of it.A total-computer-n00b who clicks " save " but has no clue how to find and access or even delete the file he saved has no control over it , morally speaking .
He may have intended to be able to control it , but morally , he ceased to have control of it when he closed the web browser window or tab.In other words , most /.ers should n't try the " but I did n't explicitly save it " defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a computer-technical perspective, as long as the data is on your computer is a way you can, in principle, retrieve, you possess it.
But that's a far cry from being able to control it, and therefore, it should be a far cry from legal possession.Assuming no DRM, the only practical difference between possession and control in the Internet world is "does the person know he has a local copy and does he know how to access, copy, delete, or otherwise make use of the local copy?
"A person who visits a web site and knows how to retrieve something from an on-disk cache can be considered to be in control of it.A total-computer-n00b who clicks "save" but has no clue how to find and access or even delete the file he saved has no control over it, morally speaking.
He may have intended to be able to control it, but morally, he ceased to have control of it when he closed the web browser window or tab.In other words, most /.ers shouldn't try the "but I didn't explicitly save it" defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556188</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous decision</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1269168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The guy is a TOTAL sicko, and <b>so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby.</b></p> </div><p>What exactly are you trying to do here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy is a TOTAL sicko , and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby .
What exactly are you trying to do here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy is a TOTAL sicko, and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby.
What exactly are you trying to do here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550818</id>
	<title>Re:Solution for CP lovers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, *accessing* child porn is also illegal in Canada. It seems like if the warrant in this case had been to look for evidence of accessing porn, the accused could have been sentenced for something. But I Am Not A Lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , * accessing * child porn is also illegal in Canada .
It seems like if the warrant in this case had been to look for evidence of accessing porn , the accused could have been sentenced for something .
But I Am Not A Lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, *accessing* child porn is also illegal in Canada.
It seems like if the warrant in this case had been to look for evidence of accessing porn, the accused could have been sentenced for something.
But I Am Not A Lawyer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550602</id>
	<title>Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will he have his computer back now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will he have his computer back now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will he have his computer back now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551502</id>
	<title>Not a mixed blessing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269117780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No the courts acted perfectly in this case and did exactly what they should have.</p><p>I don't care what the crime was, So what what if hes a dirtbag and really is guilty, without the evidence, there is, and should not be a case.</p><p>Using the perceived vileness of a crime to justify legal abuses is unacceptable. Even criminals have rights. Especially criminals. They must apply universally to have any meaning.</p><p>Its an idiotic cycle we've seen played out over the years, politicians target the least popular groups in the society for infringing of rights because nobody will want to defend them, and once we infringe one groups rights its that much easier to spread it to the rest of us.</p><p>So this guy gets to walk, somehow I doubt he'll suddenly pack up his stuff and get an office job, he'll go right back to doing business as soon as the coast is clear, there will be other chances to catch him.</p><p>Call me crazy but I want Justice out of my legal system, not witch hunts. A technician, who told child services, who told the RCMP, he saw suspiciously labeled links on someone favorites is not probable cause for a search warrant. Its just damn pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No the courts acted perfectly in this case and did exactly what they should have.I do n't care what the crime was , So what what if hes a dirtbag and really is guilty , without the evidence , there is , and should not be a case.Using the perceived vileness of a crime to justify legal abuses is unacceptable .
Even criminals have rights .
Especially criminals .
They must apply universally to have any meaning.Its an idiotic cycle we 've seen played out over the years , politicians target the least popular groups in the society for infringing of rights because nobody will want to defend them , and once we infringe one groups rights its that much easier to spread it to the rest of us.So this guy gets to walk , somehow I doubt he 'll suddenly pack up his stuff and get an office job , he 'll go right back to doing business as soon as the coast is clear , there will be other chances to catch him.Call me crazy but I want Justice out of my legal system , not witch hunts .
A technician , who told child services , who told the RCMP , he saw suspiciously labeled links on someone favorites is not probable cause for a search warrant .
Its just damn pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No the courts acted perfectly in this case and did exactly what they should have.I don't care what the crime was, So what what if hes a dirtbag and really is guilty, without the evidence, there is, and should not be a case.Using the perceived vileness of a crime to justify legal abuses is unacceptable.
Even criminals have rights.
Especially criminals.
They must apply universally to have any meaning.Its an idiotic cycle we've seen played out over the years, politicians target the least popular groups in the society for infringing of rights because nobody will want to defend them, and once we infringe one groups rights its that much easier to spread it to the rest of us.So this guy gets to walk, somehow I doubt he'll suddenly pack up his stuff and get an office job, he'll go right back to doing business as soon as the coast is clear, there will be other chances to catch him.Call me crazy but I want Justice out of my legal system, not witch hunts.
A technician, who told child services, who told the RCMP, he saw suspiciously labeled links on someone favorites is not probable cause for a search warrant.
Its just damn pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551462</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1269117480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this particular case, if you RTFA (yeah, yeah, you must be new here, etc.), you will notice that the Morelli, the accused, was also suspected of creating child porn with his 3 yo daughter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this particular case , if you RTFA ( yeah , yeah , you must be new here , etc .
) , you will notice that the Morelli , the accused , was also suspected of creating child porn with his 3 yo daughter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this particular case, if you RTFA (yeah, yeah, you must be new here, etc.
), you will notice that the Morelli, the accused, was also suspected of creating child porn with his 3 yo daughter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551716</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Savvy Judge</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1269076560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that this particular decision was even more sophisticated than that -- the judge made a point of saying that if you took advantage of the existence of the cache to store material, you <i>would</i> be in possession. So surfing to a page isn't possession, but knowingly surfing to a page, so that your cache would contain cp that you could go browze to later, might be.</p><p>I was quite surprised at just how well-done that decision was, but if you want to see an example of a Canadian judge getting it wrong, just read the dissent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that this particular decision was even more sophisticated than that -- the judge made a point of saying that if you took advantage of the existence of the cache to store material , you would be in possession .
So surfing to a page is n't possession , but knowingly surfing to a page , so that your cache would contain cp that you could go browze to later , might be.I was quite surprised at just how well-done that decision was , but if you want to see an example of a Canadian judge getting it wrong , just read the dissent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that this particular decision was even more sophisticated than that -- the judge made a point of saying that if you took advantage of the existence of the cache to store material, you would be in possession.
So surfing to a page isn't possession, but knowingly surfing to a page, so that your cache would contain cp that you could go browze to later, might be.I was quite surprised at just how well-done that decision was, but if you want to see an example of a Canadian judge getting it wrong, just read the dissent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551560</id>
	<title>Re:Is this kind of browsing routine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269118320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always rifle through peoples computers and always keep the pics of their girlfriends here at BestBuy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) the younger the better. I love the underage nudes best. 3 child porn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always rifle through peoples computers and always keep the pics of their girlfriends here at BestBuy : ) the younger the better .
I love the underage nudes best .
3 child porn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always rifle through peoples computers and always keep the pics of their girlfriends here at BestBuy :) the younger the better.
I love the underage nudes best.
3 child porn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554934</id>
	<title>Re:Say What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well as you point out that was between the british and the us, and it was many years ago.  We have forsaken our education, judicial system, hell entire political system to funneling more money into private corporations and into the military.  Our military could without a doubt whup canadas military.  While im not suggesting we do so, im just saying we could</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well as you point out that was between the british and the us , and it was many years ago .
We have forsaken our education , judicial system , hell entire political system to funneling more money into private corporations and into the military .
Our military could without a doubt whup canadas military .
While im not suggesting we do so , im just saying we could</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well as you point out that was between the british and the us, and it was many years ago.
We have forsaken our education, judicial system, hell entire political system to funneling more money into private corporations and into the military.
Our military could without a doubt whup canadas military.
While im not suggesting we do so, im just saying we could</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551318</id>
	<title>Re:Curious to how this relates to the US.</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1269116280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
</p><p>
The differences between this and having an object in cache in <b>your</b> vehicle are obvious. Everything you place in your vehicle is your responsibility, if it poses a safety hazard on the road, you are in direct control over everything that gets placed in there, you can inspect any item at any time, and you have a legal responsibility to do so, in order to ascertain the safe operation of your vehicle on public property.
</p><p>
With a browser cache it is obvious -- any URL object that the browser ever sees reference too may be eligible to be cached (depending on its size, and how long ago it was accessed):  it is automatic, and being in the cache does not necessarily indicate that a human has ever seen it.
</p><p>
Web sites may cache objects in the background, antivirus software may load objects in the background to pre-scan. Another person may have touched the computer and visited something on accident they didn't to, and immediately closed the window,  with no knowledge about any copy being retained.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle ?
The differences between this and having an object in cache in your vehicle are obvious .
Everything you place in your vehicle is your responsibility , if it poses a safety hazard on the road , you are in direct control over everything that gets placed in there , you can inspect any item at any time , and you have a legal responsibility to do so , in order to ascertain the safe operation of your vehicle on public property .
With a browser cache it is obvious -- any URL object that the browser ever sees reference too may be eligible to be cached ( depending on its size , and how long ago it was accessed ) : it is automatic , and being in the cache does not necessarily indicate that a human has ever seen it .
Web sites may cache objects in the background , antivirus software may load objects in the background to pre-scan .
Another person may have touched the computer and visited something on accident they did n't to , and immediately closed the window , with no knowledge about any copy being retained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
The differences between this and having an object in cache in your vehicle are obvious.
Everything you place in your vehicle is your responsibility, if it poses a safety hazard on the road, you are in direct control over everything that gets placed in there, you can inspect any item at any time, and you have a legal responsibility to do so, in order to ascertain the safe operation of your vehicle on public property.
With a browser cache it is obvious -- any URL object that the browser ever sees reference too may be eligible to be cached (depending on its size, and how long ago it was accessed):  it is automatic, and being in the cache does not necessarily indicate that a human has ever seen it.
Web sites may cache objects in the background, antivirus software may load objects in the background to pre-scan.
Another person may have touched the computer and visited something on accident they didn't to, and immediately closed the window,  with no knowledge about any copy being retained.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555048</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous decision</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1269105480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's creepy to me is the number of people that think "hey, it turned out he's actually guilty so that's great". The court could not possibly know this when issuing the warrant, which means that you really want to remove the right altogether.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's creepy to me is the number of people that think " hey , it turned out he 's actually guilty so that 's great " .
The court could not possibly know this when issuing the warrant , which means that you really want to remove the right altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's creepy to me is the number of people that think "hey, it turned out he's actually guilty so that's great".
The court could not possibly know this when issuing the warrant, which means that you really want to remove the right altogether.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was with you until</p><blockquote><div><p>prepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison's Rectal Olympics games.</p></div></blockquote><p>What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape? It's barbaric.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you untilprepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison 's Rectal Olympics games.What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape ?
It 's barbaric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you untilprepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison's Rectal Olympics games.What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape?
It's barbaric.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550906</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1269113460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that's not what the article even says.  The judge ruled that the technician's testimony about the nature of the camera setup and the links observed on the computer where ambiguous.  As the technician didn't even follow any of the links, it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to (unless they were patently advertising what they linked to, which strikes me as unlikely).<br> <br>The search warrant was quashed because it was issued under faulty information.  "My god, judge - the guy had a camera setup and was filming his kid, and there were links on his computer to pornographic websites!"  Well... was he filming his kid playing for Kodak memories in years to come, and were those links to pornography perfectly legitimate adult websites?  Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.<br> <br>I, for one, am tired of people tacitly assuming that pornography is corrupt and corrupting, regardless of what it contains.  It's ignorant moral panic at its finest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's not what the article even says .
The judge ruled that the technician 's testimony about the nature of the camera setup and the links observed on the computer where ambiguous .
As the technician did n't even follow any of the links , it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to ( unless they were patently advertising what they linked to , which strikes me as unlikely ) .
The search warrant was quashed because it was issued under faulty information .
" My god , judge - the guy had a camera setup and was filming his kid , and there were links on his computer to pornographic websites !
" Well... was he filming his kid playing for Kodak memories in years to come , and were those links to pornography perfectly legitimate adult websites ?
Even in the article , you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler , regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it .
I , for one , am tired of people tacitly assuming that pornography is corrupt and corrupting , regardless of what it contains .
It 's ignorant moral panic at its finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's not what the article even says.
The judge ruled that the technician's testimony about the nature of the camera setup and the links observed on the computer where ambiguous.
As the technician didn't even follow any of the links, it seems strange to me that he should be able to tell at-a-glance what they lead to (unless they were patently advertising what they linked to, which strikes me as unlikely).
The search warrant was quashed because it was issued under faulty information.
"My god, judge - the guy had a camera setup and was filming his kid, and there were links on his computer to pornographic websites!
"  Well... was he filming his kid playing for Kodak memories in years to come, and were those links to pornography perfectly legitimate adult websites?
Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.
I, for one, am tired of people tacitly assuming that pornography is corrupt and corrupting, regardless of what it contains.
It's ignorant moral panic at its finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550718</id>
	<title>Your Honor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>that oz of weed in my hand was just a cache copy which I used to smell and preview the item. It wasn't actually planning on buying it until I knew how good the quality was. Since the quality of the cannabis was sub par I was about to dump my cache on the ground and move on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that oz of weed in my hand was just a cache copy which I used to smell and preview the item .
It was n't actually planning on buying it until I knew how good the quality was .
Since the quality of the cannabis was sub par I was about to dump my cache on the ground and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that oz of weed in my hand was just a cache copy which I used to smell and preview the item.
It wasn't actually planning on buying it until I knew how good the quality was.
Since the quality of the cannabis was sub par I was about to dump my cache on the ground and move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551112</id>
	<title>offtopic - sig</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1269115020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does your sig go to one of the low-end placeholder websites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does your sig go to one of the low-end placeholder websites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does your sig go to one of the low-end placeholder websites?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551080</id>
	<title>Re:Is this kind of browsing routine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269114900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude's computer was routine?  Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.</p></div><p>Read some old news about it: <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sky-News-Undercover-Laptop-Investigation-Repair-Shops-Caught-Hacking-Into-Personal-Files/Article/200907315343387?lpos=UK\_News\_News\_Your\_Way\_Region\_2&amp;lid=NewsYourWay\_ARTICLE\_15343387\_Sky\_News\_Undercover\_Laptop\_Inves" title="sky.com" rel="nofollow">sky news</a> [sky.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude 's computer was routine ?
Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.Read some old news about it : sky news [ sky.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude's computer was routine?
Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.Read some old news about it: sky news [sky.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555282</id>
	<title>that actually produce the stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269109200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your missing the big view. this stuff is often produced by the rich, the powerful, the elite. the point of such laws is in large part to suppress anything embarrassing or that could be used for blackmail.</p><p><a href="http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/021006\_elitist\_perversion.html" title="jonesreport.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/021006\_elitist\_perversion.html</a> [jonesreport.com]<br><a href="http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/030107UN\_Sex.htm" title="infowars.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/030107UN\_Sex.htm</a> [infowars.net]<br><a href="http://news.branyvnimani.cz/?path=&amp;article\_id=9262&amp;add\_appdx=1" title="branyvnimani.cz" rel="nofollow">http://news.branyvnimani.cz/?path=&amp;article\_id=9262&amp;add\_appdx=1</a> [branyvnimani.cz]<br><a href="http://crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/modern\_day\_slavery" title="suite101.com" rel="nofollow">http://crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/modern\_day\_slavery</a> [suite101.com]<br><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/03/can\_catholic\_church\_overcome\_c.html" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/03/can\_catholic\_church\_overcome\_c.html</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your missing the big view .
this stuff is often produced by the rich , the powerful , the elite .
the point of such laws is in large part to suppress anything embarrassing or that could be used for blackmail.http : //www.jonesreport.com/articles/021006 \ _elitist \ _perversion.html [ jonesreport.com ] http : //www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/030107UN \ _Sex.htm [ infowars.net ] http : //news.branyvnimani.cz/ ? path = &amp;article \ _id = 9262&amp;add \ _appdx = 1 [ branyvnimani.cz ] http : //crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/modern \ _day \ _slavery [ suite101.com ] http : //www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/03/can \ _catholic \ _church \ _overcome \ _c.html [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your missing the big view.
this stuff is often produced by the rich, the powerful, the elite.
the point of such laws is in large part to suppress anything embarrassing or that could be used for blackmail.http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/021006\_elitist\_perversion.html [jonesreport.com]http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/030107UN\_Sex.htm [infowars.net]http://news.branyvnimani.cz/?path=&amp;article\_id=9262&amp;add\_appdx=1 [branyvnimani.cz]http://crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/modern\_day\_slavery [suite101.com]http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/03/can\_catholic\_church\_overcome\_c.html [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550826</id>
	<title>Re:Curious to how this relates to the US.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't, it is Canada.</p><p>Constructive possession is a concept where if the drugs are accessible to you, e.g. you are the passenger of a car and drugs are found in the center console, you can be charged with possession without even knowing you are there. This sort of charge routinely fucks people out of gainful employment for decades; imagine this.  Your buddy picks you up, and you are pulled over, drugs are found in the center console. Although you had no idea the drugs were there, you can be charged with possession if the driver doesn't admit to owning the drugs, or perhaps even if he does. If you are moderately wealthy, you get a lawyer, he plays buddy-buddy with the judge and prosecutor, and the charge will get dropped or downgraded to a non-drug offense, but if you are poor which is overwhelmingly the case, you wind up with probation and no hopes of finding a job in the next decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't , it is Canada.Constructive possession is a concept where if the drugs are accessible to you , e.g .
you are the passenger of a car and drugs are found in the center console , you can be charged with possession without even knowing you are there .
This sort of charge routinely fucks people out of gainful employment for decades ; imagine this .
Your buddy picks you up , and you are pulled over , drugs are found in the center console .
Although you had no idea the drugs were there , you can be charged with possession if the driver does n't admit to owning the drugs , or perhaps even if he does .
If you are moderately wealthy , you get a lawyer , he plays buddy-buddy with the judge and prosecutor , and the charge will get dropped or downgraded to a non-drug offense , but if you are poor which is overwhelmingly the case , you wind up with probation and no hopes of finding a job in the next decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't, it is Canada.Constructive possession is a concept where if the drugs are accessible to you, e.g.
you are the passenger of a car and drugs are found in the center console, you can be charged with possession without even knowing you are there.
This sort of charge routinely fucks people out of gainful employment for decades; imagine this.
Your buddy picks you up, and you are pulled over, drugs are found in the center console.
Although you had no idea the drugs were there, you can be charged with possession if the driver doesn't admit to owning the drugs, or perhaps even if he does.
If you are moderately wealthy, you get a lawyer, he plays buddy-buddy with the judge and prosecutor, and the charge will get dropped or downgraded to a non-drug offense, but if you are poor which is overwhelmingly the case, you wind up with probation and no hopes of finding a job in the next decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Jailbrekr</author>
	<datestamp>1269111900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprisingly intelligent, yes, but it completely ignores the fact that a technician found evidence that he was producing child porn, only to find that he disassembled his setup and formatted his hard drive the next day. The ruling really is a mixed blessing. Ruling that cached data does not constitute possession is a good thing, but quashing the search warrant based solely on that point was a horrible thing to do due to the rest of the evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly intelligent , yes , but it completely ignores the fact that a technician found evidence that he was producing child porn , only to find that he disassembled his setup and formatted his hard drive the next day .
The ruling really is a mixed blessing .
Ruling that cached data does not constitute possession is a good thing , but quashing the search warrant based solely on that point was a horrible thing to do due to the rest of the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly intelligent, yes, but it completely ignores the fact that a technician found evidence that he was producing child porn, only to find that he disassembled his setup and formatted his hard drive the next day.
The ruling really is a mixed blessing.
Ruling that cached data does not constitute possession is a good thing, but quashing the search warrant based solely on that point was a horrible thing to do due to the rest of the evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551458</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous decision</title>
	<author>jmanners</author>
	<datestamp>1269117420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree with you there. It appears that many people here have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the basics of the case and its appellate stages.

The Supreme Court case was adjudicated on a technicality over the original search warrant. The original trial had real physical child porn evidence.

The idea that the poor chap might have been the victim of spam, or over-zealous police, or browser pre-caching policies is total garbage.

The guy is a TOTAL sicko, and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby.

I am not getting into any debates about victimless crime or purchasing apples at a market or using dollars that may have once been stolen in a bank robbery. These ridiculous notions have been firmly rejected in every civilised country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with you there .
It appears that many people here have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the basics of the case and its appellate stages .
The Supreme Court case was adjudicated on a technicality over the original search warrant .
The original trial had real physical child porn evidence .
The idea that the poor chap might have been the victim of spam , or over-zealous police , or browser pre-caching policies is total garbage .
The guy is a TOTAL sicko , and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby .
I am not getting into any debates about victimless crime or purchasing apples at a market or using dollars that may have once been stolen in a bank robbery .
These ridiculous notions have been firmly rejected in every civilised country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with you there.
It appears that many people here have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the basics of the case and its appellate stages.
The Supreme Court case was adjudicated on a technicality over the original search warrant.
The original trial had real physical child porn evidence.
The idea that the poor chap might have been the victim of spam, or over-zealous police, or browser pre-caching policies is total garbage.
The guy is a TOTAL sicko, and so are those people here who think he should be allowed to continue his sick hobby.
I am not getting into any debates about victimless crime or purchasing apples at a market or using dollars that may have once been stolen in a bank robbery.
These ridiculous notions have been firmly rejected in every civilised country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552732</id>
	<title>The REAL problem with disseminating child porn</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1269084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue isn't just one of "gateway habit" escalation.  Nor is it just one of "abuse by proxy."</p><p>A child is hurt when child abuse happens.  Most child porn, not counting teen self- or boyfriend-cell-phone stuff, are photos of child abuse in progress.</p><p>While passing those pictures around may or may not cause <b>that</b> particular child any further harm ("abuse by proxy"),* it generally does <b>create a market</b> for child pornography.  In the aggregate, spread over all the people who view child pornography, this increases the chances that a child who would have otherwise been un-photographed or perhaps even un-molested will be victimized and that a child who is already a victim of being turned into a child porn "star" will have more photographs taken of her.</p><p>To put it another way, if by magic people stopped viewing child pornography for a year, you would see a decrease in the number of photos taken and a decrease in child molestation, even ignoring any possible "escalation" effect that other Slashdot contributors are suggesting.</p><p>By the way, I'm not speaking just of a dollars-and-sense marketplace, although there is no doubt some of that also based on the number of people stupid enough to use credit cards to buy k1dd13 pr0n.  There is no doubt some "in kind" "your kid's picture for my kid's picture" trading and also some people who just do it for their own ego boost.  Take away the ego boost, and the person may find some other way to boost his ego, hopefully a way that doesn't involve showing the world how he abused a kid.</p><p>*Sometimes when a child or grown-child-abuse realizes or is told her photos are "out there" it causes additional trauma, and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes a child or grown-child-abuse victim finds out about a particular person viewing pictures of old photos, it causes additional trauma, sometimes it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is n't just one of " gateway habit " escalation .
Nor is it just one of " abuse by proxy .
" A child is hurt when child abuse happens .
Most child porn , not counting teen self- or boyfriend-cell-phone stuff , are photos of child abuse in progress.While passing those pictures around may or may not cause that particular child any further harm ( " abuse by proxy " ) , * it generally does create a market for child pornography .
In the aggregate , spread over all the people who view child pornography , this increases the chances that a child who would have otherwise been un-photographed or perhaps even un-molested will be victimized and that a child who is already a victim of being turned into a child porn " star " will have more photographs taken of her.To put it another way , if by magic people stopped viewing child pornography for a year , you would see a decrease in the number of photos taken and a decrease in child molestation , even ignoring any possible " escalation " effect that other Slashdot contributors are suggesting.By the way , I 'm not speaking just of a dollars-and-sense marketplace , although there is no doubt some of that also based on the number of people stupid enough to use credit cards to buy k1dd13 pr0n .
There is no doubt some " in kind " " your kid 's picture for my kid 's picture " trading and also some people who just do it for their own ego boost .
Take away the ego boost , and the person may find some other way to boost his ego , hopefully a way that does n't involve showing the world how he abused a kid .
* Sometimes when a child or grown-child-abuse realizes or is told her photos are " out there " it causes additional trauma , and sometimes it does n't .
Sometimes a child or grown-child-abuse victim finds out about a particular person viewing pictures of old photos , it causes additional trauma , sometimes it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue isn't just one of "gateway habit" escalation.
Nor is it just one of "abuse by proxy.
"A child is hurt when child abuse happens.
Most child porn, not counting teen self- or boyfriend-cell-phone stuff, are photos of child abuse in progress.While passing those pictures around may or may not cause that particular child any further harm ("abuse by proxy"),* it generally does create a market for child pornography.
In the aggregate, spread over all the people who view child pornography, this increases the chances that a child who would have otherwise been un-photographed or perhaps even un-molested will be victimized and that a child who is already a victim of being turned into a child porn "star" will have more photographs taken of her.To put it another way, if by magic people stopped viewing child pornography for a year, you would see a decrease in the number of photos taken and a decrease in child molestation, even ignoring any possible "escalation" effect that other Slashdot contributors are suggesting.By the way, I'm not speaking just of a dollars-and-sense marketplace, although there is no doubt some of that also based on the number of people stupid enough to use credit cards to buy k1dd13 pr0n.
There is no doubt some "in kind" "your kid's picture for my kid's picture" trading and also some people who just do it for their own ego boost.
Take away the ego boost, and the person may find some other way to boost his ego, hopefully a way that doesn't involve showing the world how he abused a kid.
*Sometimes when a child or grown-child-abuse realizes or is told her photos are "out there" it causes additional trauma, and sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes a child or grown-child-abuse victim finds out about a particular person viewing pictures of old photos, it causes additional trauma, sometimes it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556232</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous decision</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1269169320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The technician did not find probable child porn links. He found links that were entitled "lolita". If you've ever seen porn, you know that the term "lolita" is used in PLENTY of legal porn productions. These are POSSIBLE child porn links, at best.</p></div><p>True enough. The word "Lolita" is not enough on its own to make a link a child porn link. But maybe the Technician knew what this particular link pointed to, because he already visited it on another occasion. You know, like because he is in the same kind of hobby himself, and so he just recognized that link.</p><p>
The court should order on a raid on the technician's house as well, just to be sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The technician did not find probable child porn links .
He found links that were entitled " lolita " .
If you 've ever seen porn , you know that the term " lolita " is used in PLENTY of legal porn productions .
These are POSSIBLE child porn links , at best.True enough .
The word " Lolita " is not enough on its own to make a link a child porn link .
But maybe the Technician knew what this particular link pointed to , because he already visited it on another occasion .
You know , like because he is in the same kind of hobby himself , and so he just recognized that link .
The court should order on a raid on the technician 's house as well , just to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The technician did not find probable child porn links.
He found links that were entitled "lolita".
If you've ever seen porn, you know that the term "lolita" is used in PLENTY of legal porn productions.
These are POSSIBLE child porn links, at best.True enough.
The word "Lolita" is not enough on its own to make a link a child porn link.
But maybe the Technician knew what this particular link pointed to, because he already visited it on another occasion.
You know, like because he is in the same kind of hobby himself, and so he just recognized that link.
The court should order on a raid on the technician's house as well, just to be sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269113340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> it is most unfortunate that the police signally failed in their duty to secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences</p></div><p>Looking at pictures of naked children is 'one of the most heinous and despicable offences'?  Wow.  Where do you put things like theft, rape, assault, or murder then?  Personally, I'd prefer a thousand people who looked at pictures of naked children on their computers to one person who went around killing people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is most unfortunate that the police signally failed in their duty to secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offencesLooking at pictures of naked children is 'one of the most heinous and despicable offences ' ?
Wow. Where do you put things like theft , rape , assault , or murder then ?
Personally , I 'd prefer a thousand people who looked at pictures of naked children on their computers to one person who went around killing people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it is most unfortunate that the police signally failed in their duty to secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offencesLooking at pictures of naked children is 'one of the most heinous and despicable offences'?
Wow.  Where do you put things like theft, rape, assault, or murder then?
Personally, I'd prefer a thousand people who looked at pictures of naked children on their computers to one person who went around killing people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551066</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269114780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Looking at pictures of naked children is 'one of the most heinous and despicable offences'?</p> </div><p>Doing so deliberately for purposes of arousal, yes it is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Where do you put things like theft, rape, assault, or murder then?</p></div><p>Rape and murder are also some of the most heinous and despicable offences. Assault can be, depends on the details. Theft, absent aggravating cirumstances, isn't.</p><p>Do you really need people to tell you that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at pictures of naked children is 'one of the most heinous and despicable offences ' ?
Doing so deliberately for purposes of arousal , yes it is.Where do you put things like theft , rape , assault , or murder then ? Rape and murder are also some of the most heinous and despicable offences .
Assault can be , depends on the details .
Theft , absent aggravating cirumstances , is n't.Do you really need people to tell you that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at pictures of naked children is 'one of the most heinous and despicable offences'?
Doing so deliberately for purposes of arousal, yes it is.Where do you put things like theft, rape, assault, or murder then?Rape and murder are also some of the most heinous and despicable offences.
Assault can be, depends on the details.
Theft, absent aggravating cirumstances, isn't.Do you really need people to tell you that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551266</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269115920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences."</p><p>I might argue that CP is what you say it is - but I won't bother.</p><p>I will point out, that plenty of people have been busted for CP, when pornography was the furthest thing from their minds.  Time was, when a naked infant, toddler, or even young child in a photograph raised no eyebrows anywhere.  Grandma sent many a photo off to be developed in the '50's and 60's.  Somewhere in my young adulthood - late '70's, we'll call it - I started reading about grandmothers being busted for those photos.</p><p>So - I claim that your depiction of child porn is part of the over reaction that threatens the most innocent of people.  Mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and cousins who just LOVE to compare little details, like the dimples on the cheeks of Baby Rose's ass, to those of her Aunt Betty.</p><p>I can't claim that the defendant in this case was entirely innocent, but you can't claim that he was guilty, either - because we just don't KNOW!!  A few images do not a child molester make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences .
" I might argue that CP is what you say it is - but I wo n't bother.I will point out , that plenty of people have been busted for CP , when pornography was the furthest thing from their minds .
Time was , when a naked infant , toddler , or even young child in a photograph raised no eyebrows anywhere .
Grandma sent many a photo off to be developed in the '50 's and 60 's .
Somewhere in my young adulthood - late '70 's , we 'll call it - I started reading about grandmothers being busted for those photos.So - I claim that your depiction of child porn is part of the over reaction that threatens the most innocent of people .
Mothers , grandmothers , aunts , and cousins who just LOVE to compare little details , like the dimples on the cheeks of Baby Rose 's ass , to those of her Aunt Betty.I ca n't claim that the defendant in this case was entirely innocent , but you ca n't claim that he was guilty , either - because we just do n't KNOW ! !
A few images do not a child molester make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences.
"I might argue that CP is what you say it is - but I won't bother.I will point out, that plenty of people have been busted for CP, when pornography was the furthest thing from their minds.
Time was, when a naked infant, toddler, or even young child in a photograph raised no eyebrows anywhere.
Grandma sent many a photo off to be developed in the '50's and 60's.
Somewhere in my young adulthood - late '70's, we'll call it - I started reading about grandmothers being busted for those photos.So - I claim that your depiction of child porn is part of the over reaction that threatens the most innocent of people.
Mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and cousins who just LOVE to compare little details, like the dimples on the cheeks of Baby Rose's ass, to those of her Aunt Betty.I can't claim that the defendant in this case was entirely innocent, but you can't claim that he was guilty, either - because we just don't KNOW!!
A few images do not a child molester make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31560378</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1269167340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Police like to go against the low-hanging fruit. (Puns intended)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Police like to go against the low-hanging fruit .
( Puns intended )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police like to go against the low-hanging fruit.
(Puns intended)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550816</id>
	<title>Re:Solution for CP lovers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child Pr0n viewers prefer Windows 7 to Vista.  (No UAC to interrupt... things)</p><p>I think IE9 defaults to about 100GB for caching anyhow, so you're in luck.</p><p>"Goddamit, GO AWAY clippy I'm BUSY!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Child Pr0n viewers prefer Windows 7 to Vista .
( No UAC to interrupt... things ) I think IE9 defaults to about 100GB for caching anyhow , so you 're in luck .
" Goddamit , GO AWAY clippy I 'm BUSY !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child Pr0n viewers prefer Windows 7 to Vista.
(No UAC to interrupt... things)I think IE9 defaults to about 100GB for caching anyhow, so you're in luck.
"Goddamit, GO AWAY clippy I'm BUSY!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551378</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269116700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure? You're basically saying it's legal in the US to surf child porn as long as you don't store it? I'm not really buying that, but hey, you might be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
You 're basically saying it 's legal in the US to surf child porn as long as you do n't store it ?
I 'm not really buying that , but hey , you might be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure?
You're basically saying it's legal in the US to surf child porn as long as you don't store it?
I'm not really buying that, but hey, you might be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550938</id>
	<title>child porn seizure</title>
	<author>krapski</author>
	<datestamp>1269113640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's a good decision, possession of child porn is not a good enough reason to seize a computer, because we all know the true motives of laws enabling arbitrary seizures</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's a good decision , possession of child porn is not a good enough reason to seize a computer , because we all know the true motives of laws enabling arbitrary seizures</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's a good decision, possession of child porn is not a good enough reason to seize a computer, because we all know the true motives of laws enabling arbitrary seizures</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552100</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not as much the looking at the child porn is the problem, it's the torture people often put those children through that's the problem and when you look at it it promotes more torture, kidnapping, rape, and murder of Children. Know things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as much the looking at the child porn is the problem , it 's the torture people often put those children through that 's the problem and when you look at it it promotes more torture , kidnapping , rape , and murder of Children .
Know things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as much the looking at the child porn is the problem, it's the torture people often put those children through that's the problem and when you look at it it promotes more torture, kidnapping, rape, and murder of Children.
Know things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712</id>
	<title>Solution for CP lovers</title>
	<author>Dr\_Banzai</author>
	<datestamp>1269111960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Set cache size to 100 GB.<br>
2. "accidentally" browse CP<br>
3. ?? <br>
4. Profit!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Set cache size to 100 GB .
2. " accidentally " browse CP 3 .
? ? 4 .
Profit ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Set cache size to 100 GB.
2. "accidentally" browse CP
3.
?? 
4.
Profit!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550928</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269113520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless the guy is accused of making the pictures, distributing the pictures, or paying for the pictures, who exactly is the US helping by putting this person in jail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the guy is accused of making the pictures , distributing the pictures , or paying for the pictures , who exactly is the US helping by putting this person in jail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the guy is accused of making the pictures, distributing the pictures, or paying for the pictures, who exactly is the US helping by putting this person in jail?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551668</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>redkingca</author>
	<datestamp>1269076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of this that was not explained very well in the article is that the tech felt so bad he waited 3 months before he mentioned "the pornography" (2 links in the accused's favorites) to his mother (who is the social worker in question). The tech's mother then reported it to the police, who then waited another month before the search. So everyone was so worried about the child's health that it took 4 months before anything was done. Then the Crown found so much evidence that they decided to give the accused 18 months house arrest before they tried to prosecute. Third hand reports that someone who owns a camera and looks at porn, should not be enough evidence to have someone arrested and seize their property. If the reason for the arrest was concern for the child why was no investigation of the child's welfare made? And why was the accused given house arrest at "the scene of the crime"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of this that was not explained very well in the article is that the tech felt so bad he waited 3 months before he mentioned " the pornography " ( 2 links in the accused 's favorites ) to his mother ( who is the social worker in question ) .
The tech 's mother then reported it to the police , who then waited another month before the search .
So everyone was so worried about the child 's health that it took 4 months before anything was done .
Then the Crown found so much evidence that they decided to give the accused 18 months house arrest before they tried to prosecute .
Third hand reports that someone who owns a camera and looks at porn , should not be enough evidence to have someone arrested and seize their property .
If the reason for the arrest was concern for the child why was no investigation of the child 's welfare made ?
And why was the accused given house arrest at " the scene of the crime " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of this that was not explained very well in the article is that the tech felt so bad he waited 3 months before he mentioned "the pornography" (2 links in the accused's favorites) to his mother (who is the social worker in question).
The tech's mother then reported it to the police, who then waited another month before the search.
So everyone was so worried about the child's health that it took 4 months before anything was done.
Then the Crown found so much evidence that they decided to give the accused 18 months house arrest before they tried to prosecute.
Third hand reports that someone who owns a camera and looks at porn, should not be enough evidence to have someone arrested and seize their property.
If the reason for the arrest was concern for the child why was no investigation of the child's welfare made?
And why was the accused given house arrest at "the scene of the crime"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269112680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like the guy got off on a technicality. The problem was entirely with the police in obtaining an inapproriate warrant. So while the decision is regrettable, it is also unavoidable. Deschamps, making his dissenting opinion, perhaps ought to have argued more of a public interest line.</p><p>I most certainly don't think the Supreme Court decision was reasonable or sane - it was forced. The whole matter rested on the initial search warrant, not the perspicacity of the judges' ability to distinguish technical categories of possession.</p><p>Let us not forget that the original conviction was based on physical evidence, not hearsay. The actual evidence sufficient to convict existed, and it is most unfortunate that the police signally failed in their duty to secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like the guy got off on a technicality .
The problem was entirely with the police in obtaining an inapproriate warrant .
So while the decision is regrettable , it is also unavoidable .
Deschamps , making his dissenting opinion , perhaps ought to have argued more of a public interest line.I most certainly do n't think the Supreme Court decision was reasonable or sane - it was forced .
The whole matter rested on the initial search warrant , not the perspicacity of the judges ' ability to distinguish technical categories of possession.Let us not forget that the original conviction was based on physical evidence , not hearsay .
The actual evidence sufficient to convict existed , and it is most unfortunate that the police signally failed in their duty to secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like the guy got off on a technicality.
The problem was entirely with the police in obtaining an inapproriate warrant.
So while the decision is regrettable, it is also unavoidable.
Deschamps, making his dissenting opinion, perhaps ought to have argued more of a public interest line.I most certainly don't think the Supreme Court decision was reasonable or sane - it was forced.
The whole matter rested on the initial search warrant, not the perspicacity of the judges' ability to distinguish technical categories of possession.Let us not forget that the original conviction was based on physical evidence, not hearsay.
The actual evidence sufficient to convict existed, and it is most unfortunate that the police signally failed in their duty to secure a conviction for one of the most heinous and despicable offences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551910</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269078120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's actually a fairly easy test:</p><ol><li>Do you have a penis?</li><li>Do you have even the remotest access to children?</li></ol><p>If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in the article , you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler , regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.It 's actually a fairly easy test : Do you have a penis ? Do you have even the remotest access to children ? If you can answer yes to both of those questions , you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in the article, you get the idea that simply having links to pornography somehow constitutes reasonable suspicion that you might be a kiddy-fiddler, regardless of whether that pornography is perfectly legal and unassociated with it.It's actually a fairly easy test:Do you have a penis?Do you have even the remotest access to children?If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you are automatically suspected of being a kiddie-fiddler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550842</id>
	<title>progress</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1269112860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem with this ruling is that, after a few incidents like this one occur, there will be a hew and outcry, and harsher and more encompassing laws passed, which will inevitably result in more arrests and convictions of people who oughtn't be bothered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem with this ruling is that , after a few incidents like this one occur , there will be a hew and outcry , and harsher and more encompassing laws passed , which will inevitably result in more arrests and convictions of people who ought n't be bothered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem with this ruling is that, after a few incidents like this one occur, there will be a hew and outcry, and harsher and more encompassing laws passed, which will inevitably result in more arrests and convictions of people who oughtn't be bothered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31566362</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1269267600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are all sick with jealousy of the guys who are already in prison getting good hard ass poundings.  Against their "will".

<br> <br>Thus the glee when we hear about another guy getting ready to enter wonderland - "I might be next! *swoon*</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all sick with jealousy of the guys who are already in prison getting good hard ass poundings .
Against their " will " .
Thus the glee when we hear about another guy getting ready to enter wonderland - " I might be next !
* swoon *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all sick with jealousy of the guys who are already in prison getting good hard ass poundings.
Against their "will".
Thus the glee when we hear about another guy getting ready to enter wonderland - "I might be next!
*swoon*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552150</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I commemorate the judge and jury on their competent choice</p><p>What? Are they dead already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I commemorate the judge and jury on their competent choiceWhat ?
Are they dead already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I commemorate the judge and jury on their competent choiceWhat?
Are they dead already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551050</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269114660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a Republican thing. Most Republicans are closet gays, and basically spend their days dreaming of getting reamed up the ass by fat hairy men. Rather than admit their true queer feelings, they end up feeling very guilty for some reason. It's probably because their closet-gay priests (who like to diddle children) scream repeatedly about how "horrid" homosexuality supposedly is.</p><p>Anyway, being socially unable to be openly homosexual, these Republicans push hard for lengthy jail terms for minor "crimes", ensuring years and years of sodomy. Then they secretly hope that some day they'll be caught, and get to live their lifelong fantasy of near-constant bumsex and anal rape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a Republican thing .
Most Republicans are closet gays , and basically spend their days dreaming of getting reamed up the ass by fat hairy men .
Rather than admit their true queer feelings , they end up feeling very guilty for some reason .
It 's probably because their closet-gay priests ( who like to diddle children ) scream repeatedly about how " horrid " homosexuality supposedly is.Anyway , being socially unable to be openly homosexual , these Republicans push hard for lengthy jail terms for minor " crimes " , ensuring years and years of sodomy .
Then they secretly hope that some day they 'll be caught , and get to live their lifelong fantasy of near-constant bumsex and anal rape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a Republican thing.
Most Republicans are closet gays, and basically spend their days dreaming of getting reamed up the ass by fat hairy men.
Rather than admit their true queer feelings, they end up feeling very guilty for some reason.
It's probably because their closet-gay priests (who like to diddle children) scream repeatedly about how "horrid" homosexuality supposedly is.Anyway, being socially unable to be openly homosexual, these Republicans push hard for lengthy jail terms for minor "crimes", ensuring years and years of sodomy.
Then they secretly hope that some day they'll be caught, and get to live their lifelong fantasy of near-constant bumsex and anal rape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552654</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269083760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You get full facial views of the predators enjoying their sport.</p></div><p>I won't ask how you know this.  For the sake of argument, I'll assume you heard it at an police training seminar or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You get full facial views of the predators enjoying their sport.I wo n't ask how you know this .
For the sake of argument , I 'll assume you heard it at an police training seminar or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get full facial views of the predators enjoying their sport.I won't ask how you know this.
For the sake of argument, I'll assume you heard it at an police training seminar or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551072</id>
	<title>Say What?</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1269114780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>mens rea</i></p><p>What?  What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where <i>mens rea</i> is still alive and kicking?  Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, <i>mens rea</i> was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.</p><p>That's it.  We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mens reaWhat ?
What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking ?
Here , in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated , mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.That 's it .
We 're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mens reaWhat?
What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking?
Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.That's it.
We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552594</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269083280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America has the Best Barbarians Money Can Buy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America has the Best Barbarians Money Can Buy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America has the Best Barbarians Money Can Buy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551040</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269114480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em><br>I have no sympathy for disgusting piece of shit that get off on child pornography.<br></em></p><p>I have no sympathy for disgusting "i have no sympathy".</p><p>Hey, dumbass: you forgot that in order to put someone to jail you have <em>to prove someone's guilt</em>. Not to prove that he might be guilty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no sympathy for disgusting piece of shit that get off on child pornography.I have no sympathy for disgusting " i have no sympathy " .Hey , dumbass : you forgot that in order to put someone to jail you have to prove someone 's guilt .
Not to prove that he might be guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no sympathy for disgusting piece of shit that get off on child pornography.I have no sympathy for disgusting "i have no sympathy".Hey, dumbass: you forgot that in order to put someone to jail you have to prove someone's guilt.
Not to prove that he might be guilty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551370</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269116640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Surprisingly intelligent, yes, but it completely ignores the fact that a technician found evidence that he was producing child porn, only to find that he disassembled his setup and formatted his hard drive the next day.</i></p><p>Actually, the technician found no evidence he was producing child porn. The guy had a child, camera, webcam, and VCR. None of these items are evidence of the production of child porn.</p><p>In case you didn't know, just about every parent takes pictures &amp; video of their kids. This is a normal, everyday occurrence.</p><p>The technician says they saw links to child porn sites in the browser "favorites". Unless the technician actually accessed these links, the technician can't definitively say that they are child porn sites (which would also make the technician guilty of possessing child porn).</p><p>Is this odd? Maybe. Illegal? No.</p><p>Was he producing child porn? I don't know, but there is no evidence that he was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly intelligent , yes , but it completely ignores the fact that a technician found evidence that he was producing child porn , only to find that he disassembled his setup and formatted his hard drive the next day.Actually , the technician found no evidence he was producing child porn .
The guy had a child , camera , webcam , and VCR .
None of these items are evidence of the production of child porn.In case you did n't know , just about every parent takes pictures &amp; video of their kids .
This is a normal , everyday occurrence.The technician says they saw links to child porn sites in the browser " favorites " .
Unless the technician actually accessed these links , the technician ca n't definitively say that they are child porn sites ( which would also make the technician guilty of possessing child porn ) .Is this odd ?
Maybe. Illegal ?
No.Was he producing child porn ?
I do n't know , but there is no evidence that he was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly intelligent, yes, but it completely ignores the fact that a technician found evidence that he was producing child porn, only to find that he disassembled his setup and formatted his hard drive the next day.Actually, the technician found no evidence he was producing child porn.
The guy had a child, camera, webcam, and VCR.
None of these items are evidence of the production of child porn.In case you didn't know, just about every parent takes pictures &amp; video of their kids.
This is a normal, everyday occurrence.The technician says they saw links to child porn sites in the browser "favorites".
Unless the technician actually accessed these links, the technician can't definitively say that they are child porn sites (which would also make the technician guilty of possessing child porn).Is this odd?
Maybe. Illegal?
No.Was he producing child porn?
I don't know, but there is no evidence that he was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31560166</id>
	<title>Re:The REAL problem with disseminating child porn</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269166020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free availability of CP on the Net should actually reduce child abuse by reducing the commercial incentive.</p><p>It's only *buying* CP that creates a market - not looking at it.</p><p>The more you try to suppress dissemination, the higher the profits and the higher the incentive to make new material - just like the war on drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free availability of CP on the Net should actually reduce child abuse by reducing the commercial incentive.It 's only * buying * CP that creates a market - not looking at it.The more you try to suppress dissemination , the higher the profits and the higher the incentive to make new material - just like the war on drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free availability of CP on the Net should actually reduce child abuse by reducing the commercial incentive.It's only *buying* CP that creates a market - not looking at it.The more you try to suppress dissemination, the higher the profits and the higher the incentive to make new material - just like the war on drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551942</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269078300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What evidence of child porn?  A webcam pointed at his daughter and a few links?  Maybe he was showing his daughter to a relative, who knows.  The point is that child porn does not trump all existing rights and laws.</p><p>Im glad Canada has some intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What evidence of child porn ?
A webcam pointed at his daughter and a few links ?
Maybe he was showing his daughter to a relative , who knows .
The point is that child porn does not trump all existing rights and laws.Im glad Canada has some intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What evidence of child porn?
A webcam pointed at his daughter and a few links?
Maybe he was showing his daughter to a relative, who knows.
The point is that child porn does not trump all existing rights and laws.Im glad Canada has some intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554918</id>
	<title>Re:Say What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>mens rea</i> </p><p>What?  What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where <i>mens rea</i> is still alive and kicking?  Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, <i>mens rea</i> was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.</p><p>That's it.  We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></div><p>ermm...you tried that once before, it didnt work out so well, and in fact we got pissed enough to burn down your White House.</p><p>Seriously though, thanks for the Kudos.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mens rea What ?
What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking ?
Here , in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated , mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.That 's it .
We 're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.--BMOermm...you tried that once before , it didnt work out so well , and in fact we got pissed enough to burn down your White House.Seriously though , thanks for the Kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> mens rea What?
What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking?
Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.That's it.
We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.--BMOermm...you tried that once before, it didnt work out so well, and in fact we got pissed enough to burn down your White House.Seriously though, thanks for the Kudos.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550710</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Savvy Judge</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1269111900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm proud of being Canadian when judgments like this come down.  We've had a number of other salient ones in the last number of years too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm proud of being Canadian when judgments like this come down .
We 've had a number of other salient ones in the last number of years too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm proud of being Canadian when judgments like this come down.
We've had a number of other salient ones in the last number of years too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551698</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The technician saw evidence that the man was video taping his fully clothed daughter at play and he saw a few bookmarks that he believes are child porn.</p><p>How those links got there, he cannot say. Perhaps the owner put them there, perhaps some rogue javascript or a virus did it. Perhaps the owner reinstalled because CP links and images appeared unwanted on his computer. Who knows?</p><p>If an ad can animate a complete XP desktop going through a simulated virus scan, even on a Linux machine running Firefox, then it's not at all inconceivable that a malicious site could cause some CP to appear in the cache and add a few unwanted bookmarks.</p><p>It seems that the man went through an awful lot of hell for no good reason if that's all they had to go on. Meanwhile, the judge doesn't want a lot of people to go through a lot of hell over vague suspicions. That's quite wise in these days when vague suspicion is rampant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The technician saw evidence that the man was video taping his fully clothed daughter at play and he saw a few bookmarks that he believes are child porn.How those links got there , he can not say .
Perhaps the owner put them there , perhaps some rogue javascript or a virus did it .
Perhaps the owner reinstalled because CP links and images appeared unwanted on his computer .
Who knows ? If an ad can animate a complete XP desktop going through a simulated virus scan , even on a Linux machine running Firefox , then it 's not at all inconceivable that a malicious site could cause some CP to appear in the cache and add a few unwanted bookmarks.It seems that the man went through an awful lot of hell for no good reason if that 's all they had to go on .
Meanwhile , the judge does n't want a lot of people to go through a lot of hell over vague suspicions .
That 's quite wise in these days when vague suspicion is rampant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technician saw evidence that the man was video taping his fully clothed daughter at play and he saw a few bookmarks that he believes are child porn.How those links got there, he cannot say.
Perhaps the owner put them there, perhaps some rogue javascript or a virus did it.
Perhaps the owner reinstalled because CP links and images appeared unwanted on his computer.
Who knows?If an ad can animate a complete XP desktop going through a simulated virus scan, even on a Linux machine running Firefox, then it's not at all inconceivable that a malicious site could cause some CP to appear in the cache and add a few unwanted bookmarks.It seems that the man went through an awful lot of hell for no good reason if that's all they had to go on.
Meanwhile, the judge doesn't want a lot of people to go through a lot of hell over vague suspicions.
That's quite wise in these days when vague suspicion is rampant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551156</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1269115380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could not be more wrong.  Receiving illegal contraband does not require that you continue to possess said contraband for any length of time.  It is illegal to possess, receive, distribute, and/or produce child pornography(see 18 U.S.C.  2251, 2252, 2252A).  You can try and double-talk all you want, but I will promise you that you will be looking at the long end of a bad prison sentence if you try and obtain child porn; even for 30 seconds.</p><p>People always believe they are more intelligent that the government, but I always proved people wrong.  There is no excuse or story that I have not heard during my time in law enforcement, and 99\% of them never worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could not be more wrong .
Receiving illegal contraband does not require that you continue to possess said contraband for any length of time .
It is illegal to possess , receive , distribute , and/or produce child pornography ( see 18 U.S.C .
2251 , 2252 , 2252A ) .
You can try and double-talk all you want , but I will promise you that you will be looking at the long end of a bad prison sentence if you try and obtain child porn ; even for 30 seconds.People always believe they are more intelligent that the government , but I always proved people wrong .
There is no excuse or story that I have not heard during my time in law enforcement , and 99 \ % of them never worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could not be more wrong.
Receiving illegal contraband does not require that you continue to possess said contraband for any length of time.
It is illegal to possess, receive, distribute, and/or produce child pornography(see 18 U.S.C.
2251, 2252, 2252A).
You can try and double-talk all you want, but I will promise you that you will be looking at the long end of a bad prison sentence if you try and obtain child porn; even for 30 seconds.People always believe they are more intelligent that the government, but I always proved people wrong.
There is no excuse or story that I have not heard during my time in law enforcement, and 99\% of them never worked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269115200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff."</p><p>I fully agree.  I mean, even if the perv has thousands of images and hundreds of videos, he's not actually touched one single child while collecting them.</p><p>In my post above, I mentioned the dark net.  The predators are proud of their "work".  You get full facial views of the predators enjoying their sport.  How hard can it be for the police forces to combine their intelligence, and match the face to somoene?  Often enough, tatoos and other marks make the job easier.</p><p>So, yeah, go after the predators FIRST, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff .
" I fully agree .
I mean , even if the perv has thousands of images and hundreds of videos , he 's not actually touched one single child while collecting them.In my post above , I mentioned the dark net .
The predators are proud of their " work " .
You get full facial views of the predators enjoying their sport .
How hard can it be for the police forces to combine their intelligence , and match the face to somoene ?
Often enough , tatoos and other marks make the job easier.So , yeah , go after the predators FIRST , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff.
"I fully agree.
I mean, even if the perv has thousands of images and hundreds of videos, he's not actually touched one single child while collecting them.In my post above, I mentioned the dark net.
The predators are proud of their "work".
You get full facial views of the predators enjoying their sport.
How hard can it be for the police forces to combine their intelligence, and match the face to somoene?
Often enough, tatoos and other marks make the job easier.So, yeah, go after the predators FIRST, at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550832</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Savvy Judge</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269112740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of, wait, it's not my legal system, it's Canada's. nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges?</p></div><p>Let's hope that even though many of us don't live in Canada and the case doesn't directly set precedent in our legal systems the case is widely reported among legal professionals and they get a better understanding of the technical side of the argument. At the very least this should give lawyers in other countries ideas for a better defense for their clients.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of , wait , it 's not my legal system , it 's Canada 's .
nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges ? Let 's hope that even though many of us do n't live in Canada and the case does n't directly set precedent in our legal systems the case is widely reported among legal professionals and they get a better understanding of the technical side of the argument .
At the very least this should give lawyers in other countries ideas for a better defense for their clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of, wait, it's not my legal system, it's Canada's.
nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges?Let's hope that even though many of us don't live in Canada and the case doesn't directly set precedent in our legal systems the case is widely reported among legal professionals and they get a better understanding of the technical side of the argument.
At the very least this should give lawyers in other countries ideas for a better defense for their clients.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553142</id>
	<title>Re:Say What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.</p></div><p>The last dust-up between Canada (a British colony at the time and probably called British North America) and United States of America ended with BNA burning down the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Are you itching for a repeat performance?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.The last dust-up between Canada ( a British colony at the time and probably called British North America ) and United States of America ended with BNA burning down the White House in Washington , D.C. , U.S.A. Are you itching for a repeat performance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.The last dust-up between Canada (a British colony at the time and probably called British North America) and United States of America ended with BNA burning down the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Are you itching for a repeat performance?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554646</id>
	<title>Re:Is this kind of browsing routine?</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1269100260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the articles.   The technician saw a porn image, not kiddie porn, open on the computer.  The technician saw a couple of bookmarks with the word "lolita" in them.  I don't know why he was looking through the guy's bookmarks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the articles .
The technician saw a porn image , not kiddie porn , open on the computer .
The technician saw a couple of bookmarks with the word " lolita " in them .
I do n't know why he was looking through the guy 's bookmarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the articles.
The technician saw a porn image, not kiddie porn, open on the computer.
The technician saw a couple of bookmarks with the word "lolita" in them.
I don't know why he was looking through the guy's bookmarks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31559898</id>
	<title>Clues = congratulations</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1269164280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm proud to say that I am a personal friend of one of the non-dissenting judges, and you can be sure that I will congratulate him for his cluefulness in what constitutes a cache.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm proud to say that I am a personal friend of one of the non-dissenting judges , and you can be sure that I will congratulate him for his cluefulness in what constitutes a cache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm proud to say that I am a personal friend of one of the non-dissenting judges, and you can be sure that I will congratulate him for his cluefulness in what constitutes a cache.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550930</id>
	<title>Re:"Making" in the UK, not cache-ing</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269113520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5</p></div><p>This is a serious crime but, thankfully, it is its own punishment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5This is a serious crime but , thankfully , it is its own punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5This is a serious crime but, thankfully, it is its own punishment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550976</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269114000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see.... based on the description, it is possible that the guy was into child-porn. However, what bugs me is that the evidence that was described to get the search warrant was this:<br>- a web cam pointed at an area where a three-year old plays, and plugged into a vcr<br>- a list of links in the taskbar, where it is unclear whether the technician actually followed them to identify them as adult and child porn. Or where they labeled "adult porn" and "child porn"? The article is unclear here.</p><p>And... that's about it. At no time did the technician actually see child porn on the computer. At no time did he see any abuse, or even signs that abuse has happened. So really, the warrant was based on the idea that pointing a web cam at your kid can only happen for the reason of producing child porn, and that the names of certain websites indicate the content of their images. That's bullshit. The first one is more likely due to parents wanting to have memories of their kids, and the second.... well, the odds that every girl on a pornsite that just happened to turn 18 is actually 18 are damn near zero. I'd say naming conventions for porn sites don't exactly hold up to scrutiny.</p><p>I'm assuming here that the conviction happened because the warrant actually turned up child pornography. What pisses me off though is that the warrant itself was bogus, and and now Mr kiddyporn is going free on a technicality.</p><p>However, I'd like to remind everyone that technicalities are there to protect everyone of us from idiots in power. What happened was exactly what was supposed to have happened. I just hope that the police now do it right and get him again... because he is likely to slip up again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see.... based on the description , it is possible that the guy was into child-porn .
However , what bugs me is that the evidence that was described to get the search warrant was this : - a web cam pointed at an area where a three-year old plays , and plugged into a vcr- a list of links in the taskbar , where it is unclear whether the technician actually followed them to identify them as adult and child porn .
Or where they labeled " adult porn " and " child porn " ?
The article is unclear here.And... that 's about it .
At no time did the technician actually see child porn on the computer .
At no time did he see any abuse , or even signs that abuse has happened .
So really , the warrant was based on the idea that pointing a web cam at your kid can only happen for the reason of producing child porn , and that the names of certain websites indicate the content of their images .
That 's bullshit .
The first one is more likely due to parents wanting to have memories of their kids , and the second.... well , the odds that every girl on a pornsite that just happened to turn 18 is actually 18 are damn near zero .
I 'd say naming conventions for porn sites do n't exactly hold up to scrutiny.I 'm assuming here that the conviction happened because the warrant actually turned up child pornography .
What pisses me off though is that the warrant itself was bogus , and and now Mr kiddyporn is going free on a technicality.However , I 'd like to remind everyone that technicalities are there to protect everyone of us from idiots in power .
What happened was exactly what was supposed to have happened .
I just hope that the police now do it right and get him again... because he is likely to slip up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see.... based on the description, it is possible that the guy was into child-porn.
However, what bugs me is that the evidence that was described to get the search warrant was this:- a web cam pointed at an area where a three-year old plays, and plugged into a vcr- a list of links in the taskbar, where it is unclear whether the technician actually followed them to identify them as adult and child porn.
Or where they labeled "adult porn" and "child porn"?
The article is unclear here.And... that's about it.
At no time did the technician actually see child porn on the computer.
At no time did he see any abuse, or even signs that abuse has happened.
So really, the warrant was based on the idea that pointing a web cam at your kid can only happen for the reason of producing child porn, and that the names of certain websites indicate the content of their images.
That's bullshit.
The first one is more likely due to parents wanting to have memories of their kids, and the second.... well, the odds that every girl on a pornsite that just happened to turn 18 is actually 18 are damn near zero.
I'd say naming conventions for porn sites don't exactly hold up to scrutiny.I'm assuming here that the conviction happened because the warrant actually turned up child pornography.
What pisses me off though is that the warrant itself was bogus, and and now Mr kiddyporn is going free on a technicality.However, I'd like to remind everyone that technicalities are there to protect everyone of us from idiots in power.
What happened was exactly what was supposed to have happened.
I just hope that the police now do it right and get him again... because he is likely to slip up again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551964</id>
	<title>Re:Solution for CP lovers</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269078660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You made a good point.</p><p>I&rsquo;ve though about this quite some time. And the core problem of all of this, is the <strong>intent</strong>.<br>Or rather that we can&rsquo;t find out your intent.</p><p>If we knew the intent, we could put someone who is trying your scheme, into jail. But not someone who really accidentally landed on such a site. (E.g. a Goatse-like CP link going trough a URL shortener.)<br>This is a giant problem. Which results in the self-contradiction of:<br>1. Innocent until proven guilty. (= In case of unknown intention, you are <em>not</em> guilty.)<br>2. Ignorance is no protection against punishment. (= In case of unknown intention, you <em>are</em> guilty.)</p><p>I think (2) is morally wrong, because in the cane that the intention really is not known, one should never assume evil intentions. Ever.<br>That&rsquo;s what proof is for! Proof of intention.<br>For example:<br>A) Someone downloads CP. He jacks off to it, and gets caught in mid-action. -&gt; Guilty!<br>B) Someone downloads CP. He tries to analyze the images to see if he can find clues on how to catch the guy. Later, someone finds the images on his computer. -&gt; NOT guilty! Even if the intention was not known. Even if his intention was bad, but not known.</p><p>A fair society demands the rules to be like this. <strong>Or else everybody can just shove CP on your computer when you don&rsquo;t look, and then throw you in jail for it.</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You made a good point.I    ve though about this quite some time .
And the core problem of all of this , is the intent.Or rather that we can    t find out your intent.If we knew the intent , we could put someone who is trying your scheme , into jail .
But not someone who really accidentally landed on such a site .
( E.g. a Goatse-like CP link going trough a URL shortener .
) This is a giant problem .
Which results in the self-contradiction of : 1 .
Innocent until proven guilty .
( = In case of unknown intention , you are not guilty. ) 2 .
Ignorance is no protection against punishment .
( = In case of unknown intention , you are guilty .
) I think ( 2 ) is morally wrong , because in the cane that the intention really is not known , one should never assume evil intentions .
Ever.That    s what proof is for !
Proof of intention.For example : A ) Someone downloads CP .
He jacks off to it , and gets caught in mid-action .
- &gt; Guilty ! B ) Someone downloads CP .
He tries to analyze the images to see if he can find clues on how to catch the guy .
Later , someone finds the images on his computer .
- &gt; NOT guilty !
Even if the intention was not known .
Even if his intention was bad , but not known.A fair society demands the rules to be like this .
Or else everybody can just shove CP on your computer when you don    t look , and then throw you in jail for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You made a good point.I’ve though about this quite some time.
And the core problem of all of this, is the intent.Or rather that we can’t find out your intent.If we knew the intent, we could put someone who is trying your scheme, into jail.
But not someone who really accidentally landed on such a site.
(E.g. a Goatse-like CP link going trough a URL shortener.
)This is a giant problem.
Which results in the self-contradiction of:1.
Innocent until proven guilty.
(= In case of unknown intention, you are not guilty.)2.
Ignorance is no protection against punishment.
(= In case of unknown intention, you are guilty.
)I think (2) is morally wrong, because in the cane that the intention really is not known, one should never assume evil intentions.
Ever.That’s what proof is for!
Proof of intention.For example:A) Someone downloads CP.
He jacks off to it, and gets caught in mid-action.
-&gt; Guilty!B) Someone downloads CP.
He tries to analyze the images to see if he can find clues on how to catch the guy.
Later, someone finds the images on his computer.
-&gt; NOT guilty!
Even if the intention was not known.
Even if his intention was bad, but not known.A fair society demands the rules to be like this.
Or else everybody can just shove CP on your computer when you don’t look, and then throw you in jail for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551978</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269078780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550732</id>
	<title>Would you like to store your web page so it may...</title>
	<author>JDmetro</author>
	<datestamp>1269112080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>be accessed faster in the future?<br>I may not have it worded exactly...but I if recall doesn't Explorer ask that first time you start it? (been years since I used Windows)</htmltext>
<tokenext>be accessed faster in the future ? I may not have it worded exactly...but I if recall does n't Explorer ask that first time you start it ?
( been years since I used Windows )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be accessed faster in the future?I may not have it worded exactly...but I if recall doesn't Explorer ask that first time you start it?
(been years since I used Windows)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553816</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people NEED someone to hate.</p><p>In the US, pedophiles are the only people left that you can hate without offending someone.  We don't allow antisemitism, racism, hatred of ethnic minorities, homophobia etc. etc. etc.</p><p>It's gonna be interesting in Europe.  Since Mohammad was a pedophile I suppose they may have to give up hating pedophiles, but don't worry, they're already going back to hating Jews as a backup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people NEED someone to hate.In the US , pedophiles are the only people left that you can hate without offending someone .
We do n't allow antisemitism , racism , hatred of ethnic minorities , homophobia etc .
etc. etc.It 's gon na be interesting in Europe .
Since Mohammad was a pedophile I suppose they may have to give up hating pedophiles , but do n't worry , they 're already going back to hating Jews as a backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people NEED someone to hate.In the US, pedophiles are the only people left that you can hate without offending someone.
We don't allow antisemitism, racism, hatred of ethnic minorities, homophobia etc.
etc. etc.It's gonna be interesting in Europe.
Since Mohammad was a pedophile I suppose they may have to give up hating pedophiles, but don't worry, they're already going back to hating Jews as a backup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551322</id>
	<title>Justice</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1269116340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something is not very right when someone that goes drunk in a highway (and be able to cause the death of a lot of people, in fact, it keeps happening frequently) get a far less punishment (few months of jail and a fine at best?) that someone browsing random internet pages and hitting one with images that could be qualified as child porn (years in jail). In fact, maybe someone that physically attacks and do permanent injuries to someone could get less punishment, maybe just kill is the only crime that gets a worse punishment that anything that could be attached remotely the label of child porn, even if there was no minor involved at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something is not very right when someone that goes drunk in a highway ( and be able to cause the death of a lot of people , in fact , it keeps happening frequently ) get a far less punishment ( few months of jail and a fine at best ?
) that someone browsing random internet pages and hitting one with images that could be qualified as child porn ( years in jail ) .
In fact , maybe someone that physically attacks and do permanent injuries to someone could get less punishment , maybe just kill is the only crime that gets a worse punishment that anything that could be attached remotely the label of child porn , even if there was no minor involved at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something is not very right when someone that goes drunk in a highway (and be able to cause the death of a lot of people, in fact, it keeps happening frequently) get a far less punishment (few months of jail and a fine at best?
) that someone browsing random internet pages and hitting one with images that could be qualified as child porn (years in jail).
In fact, maybe someone that physically attacks and do permanent injuries to someone could get less punishment, maybe just kill is the only crime that gets a worse punishment that anything that could be attached remotely the label of child porn, even if there was no minor involved at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31570382</id>
	<title>Good for Canada</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1269278460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am always glad when people make the right decisions. Makes be happy I live in Canada.</p><p>Now we just have to kill that Copyright bill again.Lets go!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am always glad when people make the right decisions .
Makes be happy I live in Canada.Now we just have to kill that Copyright bill again.Lets go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am always glad when people make the right decisions.
Makes be happy I live in Canada.Now we just have to kill that Copyright bill again.Lets go!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551908</id>
	<title>Re:Curious to how this relates to the US.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269078120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of me want's to say something like:</p><p>Maybe you should get to know your friends better then.</p><p>BUT the rest of me screams that drug laws in Canada are still ridiculous. honestly. there are much worse things in the world than a person choosing to do something to themselves.</p><p>The reasons that most drugs are illegal in Canada still perplexes me to this day. Most of it was established to prevent the workforce from "damaging" itself without knowing it was doing so.  Overall, the long term effect of some drugs CAN affect some peoples ability to perform at a function.</p><p>Even strange seemingly unrelated laws like possessing child pornography follow this same rule. It damages the "reputation" of an individual, preventing them from maintaining employment, lowering the value of our dollar in the eyes of the world.</p><p>Oh the joy of global economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of me want 's to say something like : Maybe you should get to know your friends better then.BUT the rest of me screams that drug laws in Canada are still ridiculous .
honestly. there are much worse things in the world than a person choosing to do something to themselves.The reasons that most drugs are illegal in Canada still perplexes me to this day .
Most of it was established to prevent the workforce from " damaging " itself without knowing it was doing so .
Overall , the long term effect of some drugs CAN affect some peoples ability to perform at a function.Even strange seemingly unrelated laws like possessing child pornography follow this same rule .
It damages the " reputation " of an individual , preventing them from maintaining employment , lowering the value of our dollar in the eyes of the world.Oh the joy of global economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of me want's to say something like:Maybe you should get to know your friends better then.BUT the rest of me screams that drug laws in Canada are still ridiculous.
honestly. there are much worse things in the world than a person choosing to do something to themselves.The reasons that most drugs are illegal in Canada still perplexes me to this day.
Most of it was established to prevent the workforce from "damaging" itself without knowing it was doing so.
Overall, the long term effect of some drugs CAN affect some peoples ability to perform at a function.Even strange seemingly unrelated laws like possessing child pornography follow this same rule.
It damages the "reputation" of an individual, preventing them from maintaining employment, lowering the value of our dollar in the eyes of the world.Oh the joy of global economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1269113280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This kind of crap would not fly in the United States. The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer's browser cache, but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser.</p> </div><p>But the law specifically says you cannot possess such material. It does not state that you cannot *view* the images. Which means that while the cache constitutes likely proof to show that he did view it -- that is not a criminal act.  The distinction you're trying to erase is exactly the one that prevented him from being convicted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of crap would not fly in the United States .
The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer 's browser cache , but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser .
But the law specifically says you can not possess such material .
It does not state that you can not * view * the images .
Which means that while the cache constitutes likely proof to show that he did view it -- that is not a criminal act .
The distinction you 're trying to erase is exactly the one that prevented him from being convicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of crap would not fly in the United States.
The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer's browser cache, but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser.
But the law specifically says you cannot possess such material.
It does not state that you cannot *view* the images.
Which means that while the cache constitutes likely proof to show that he did view it -- that is not a criminal act.
The distinction you're trying to erase is exactly the one that prevented him from being convicted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552442</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269082200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably for the same reason crusaders against adulterers and homosexuals are often caught doing those very acts.  The more vocal someone is against something, it's because they're trying to prove they're against it.</p><p>In this case, I think someone has a deep, dark secret fantasy of being someone's bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably for the same reason crusaders against adulterers and homosexuals are often caught doing those very acts .
The more vocal someone is against something , it 's because they 're trying to prove they 're against it.In this case , I think someone has a deep , dark secret fantasy of being someone 's bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably for the same reason crusaders against adulterers and homosexuals are often caught doing those very acts.
The more vocal someone is against something, it's because they're trying to prove they're against it.In this case, I think someone has a deep, dark secret fantasy of being someone's bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550676</id>
	<title>This makes sense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It never struck me as sensible that an individual is legally responsible for the contents of their cache file(s).  If you inadvertently stumble upon obviously illegal child porn on the internet and report it to the appropriate authorities, you could be prosecuted just like a child molesting sex offender because those files were stored in your cache when you discovered them.</p><p>Thanks Canada, for making sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It never struck me as sensible that an individual is legally responsible for the contents of their cache file ( s ) .
If you inadvertently stumble upon obviously illegal child porn on the internet and report it to the appropriate authorities , you could be prosecuted just like a child molesting sex offender because those files were stored in your cache when you discovered them.Thanks Canada , for making sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never struck me as sensible that an individual is legally responsible for the contents of their cache file(s).
If you inadvertently stumble upon obviously illegal child porn on the internet and report it to the appropriate authorities, you could be prosecuted just like a child molesting sex offender because those files were stored in your cache when you discovered them.Thanks Canada, for making sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31563102</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a right to create spoofs. So it probably doesn't count despite that being one of the lies constantly used to keep Steamboat Willie from ever coming out of copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a right to create spoofs .
So it probably does n't count despite that being one of the lies constantly used to keep Steamboat Willie from ever coming out of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a right to create spoofs.
So it probably doesn't count despite that being one of the lies constantly used to keep Steamboat Willie from ever coming out of copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642</id>
	<title>court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269111480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprisingly sophisticated and reasonable thinking on behalf of the court.  I'm impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly sophisticated and reasonable thinking on behalf of the court .
I 'm impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly sophisticated and reasonable thinking on behalf of the court.
I'm impressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556290</id>
	<title>CYA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269169980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do not let these f#1q&amp; techs - strangers - look at your info. They have to swap out the hard drive before fixing your computer.</p><p>Web pages and other software can do things to your machine that you don't know anything about.</p><p>CYA - either learn how to hide your important stuff and leave a blank boot partition for inspectors or encrypt, or else fix your own computer, or be prepared to buy cheap disposable computers.</p><p>In the age of automation, you cannot trust the justice system to be just when you are in its clutches. So far, we can count ourselves lucky, but unfavorable odds may be accumulating. It is possible that any one of us might suck in a virus that sends a command to another computer, which in turn starts a machine and causes death and destruction - in the investigation how would one defend? Is there a way to divest oneself fully of identification on the Internet while maintaining a high speed account? A fake identity perhaps.</p><p>That which works for us can be used against us - Sep. 11 and the ensuing airport security could be a harbinger of the hoops that we have to dive through just to keep our asses out of a sling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not let these f # 1q&amp; techs - strangers - look at your info .
They have to swap out the hard drive before fixing your computer.Web pages and other software can do things to your machine that you do n't know anything about.CYA - either learn how to hide your important stuff and leave a blank boot partition for inspectors or encrypt , or else fix your own computer , or be prepared to buy cheap disposable computers.In the age of automation , you can not trust the justice system to be just when you are in its clutches .
So far , we can count ourselves lucky , but unfavorable odds may be accumulating .
It is possible that any one of us might suck in a virus that sends a command to another computer , which in turn starts a machine and causes death and destruction - in the investigation how would one defend ?
Is there a way to divest oneself fully of identification on the Internet while maintaining a high speed account ?
A fake identity perhaps.That which works for us can be used against us - Sep. 11 and the ensuing airport security could be a harbinger of the hoops that we have to dive through just to keep our asses out of a sling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not let these f#1q&amp; techs - strangers - look at your info.
They have to swap out the hard drive before fixing your computer.Web pages and other software can do things to your machine that you don't know anything about.CYA - either learn how to hide your important stuff and leave a blank boot partition for inspectors or encrypt, or else fix your own computer, or be prepared to buy cheap disposable computers.In the age of automation, you cannot trust the justice system to be just when you are in its clutches.
So far, we can count ourselves lucky, but unfavorable odds may be accumulating.
It is possible that any one of us might suck in a virus that sends a command to another computer, which in turn starts a machine and causes death and destruction - in the investigation how would one defend?
Is there a way to divest oneself fully of identification on the Internet while maintaining a high speed account?
A fake identity perhaps.That which works for us can be used against us - Sep. 11 and the ensuing airport security could be a harbinger of the hoops that we have to dive through just to keep our asses out of a sling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551542</id>
	<title>Doug Stanhope on MySpace pedophiles</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1269118200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>"Child Pornography is the only crime that is illegal to look at"</p><p>"If you are a parent, you probably don't want to hear this but [...] statistically, no one wants to fuck your kid. Now or ever! [...]. You want to think your kid is the reason all those pedophiles are there waiting in position [...] if you wanted your kid to get fucked just to prove how ultrafuckable that kid is you probably couldn't make it happen. If you put him up as bait dressed in a catholic school skirt jumping on a pogo stick with no underwear [...] he would still probably graduate a virgin, and you would look like an asshole."</p><p>Best. Comedy. Ever (The great 4: Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Doug Stanhope)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 8APlx9btTn8 [ youtube.com ] " Child Pornography is the only crime that is illegal to look at " " If you are a parent , you probably do n't want to hear this but [ ... ] statistically , no one wants to fuck your kid .
Now or ever !
[ ... ] . You want to think your kid is the reason all those pedophiles are there waiting in position [ ... ] if you wanted your kid to get fucked just to prove how ultrafuckable that kid is you probably could n't make it happen .
If you put him up as bait dressed in a catholic school skirt jumping on a pogo stick with no underwear [ ... ] he would still probably graduate a virgin , and you would look like an asshole. " Best .
Comedy. Ever ( The great 4 : Lenny Bruce , George Carlin , Bill Hicks , Doug Stanhope )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8 [youtube.com]"Child Pornography is the only crime that is illegal to look at""If you are a parent, you probably don't want to hear this but [...] statistically, no one wants to fuck your kid.
Now or ever!
[...]. You want to think your kid is the reason all those pedophiles are there waiting in position [...] if you wanted your kid to get fucked just to prove how ultrafuckable that kid is you probably couldn't make it happen.
If you put him up as bait dressed in a catholic school skirt jumping on a pogo stick with no underwear [...] he would still probably graduate a virgin, and you would look like an asshole."Best.
Comedy. Ever (The great 4: Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Doug Stanhope)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553058</id>
	<title>Re:Child porn laws are out of control.</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1269086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people purchasing the child porn with their credit cards or online services are the ones encouraging the predators to produce the stuff.</p><p>The moral issue over kids send photographs to each other is that they are doing because they believe it is the only way to make friends and start relationships.</p><p>Do you send such pictures to potential employers or customers when you are looking for a new job?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people purchasing the child porn with their credit cards or online services are the ones encouraging the predators to produce the stuff.The moral issue over kids send photographs to each other is that they are doing because they believe it is the only way to make friends and start relationships.Do you send such pictures to potential employers or customers when you are looking for a new job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people purchasing the child porn with their credit cards or online services are the ones encouraging the predators to produce the stuff.The moral issue over kids send photographs to each other is that they are doing because they believe it is the only way to make friends and start relationships.Do you send such pictures to potential employers or customers when you are looking for a new job?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551232</id>
	<title>Re:court intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269115800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who feign "outrage" at child porn are almost always pedophiles themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who feign " outrage " at child porn are almost always pedophiles themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who feign "outrage" at child porn are almost always pedophiles themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555726</id>
	<title>Re:This is total horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269203160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was with you until</p><blockquote><div><p>prepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison's Rectal Olympics games.</p></div></blockquote><p>What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape? It's barbaric.</p></div><p>Well, after 8 years of Bush and his boys, the American population got used to it on a near daily basis....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you untilprepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison 's Rectal Olympics games.What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape ?
It 's barbaric.Well , after 8 years of Bush and his boys , the American population got used to it on a near daily basis... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you untilprepare to be on the receiving end of one of the prison's Rectal Olympics games.What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape?
It's barbaric.Well, after 8 years of Bush and his boys, the American population got used to it on a near daily basis....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31563102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31560378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31560166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31563152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31566362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1615211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31556188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31563102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552654
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552732
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31563152
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31560166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31560378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550860
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551910
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552100
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551232
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551066
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31554914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31552442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31553816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31566362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31555726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1615211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31551964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1615211.31550818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
