Could be Zoom messing up their logs, but could also be NAT from the provider.
A few years ago, me and my sister noticed we had the same IPv4 address, despite not living in the same household. We had different IPv6, though. It seems to be becoming more and more prevalent due to IPv4 exhaustion.
It’s incredibly irresponsible to take action against someone based on their IP address alone.
If you have an idea on how abusive actors behind CG-NAT can be identified and blocked without blocking the entire CG-NAT, and that idea is not morally unacceptable to the hacker community (as captchas, fingerprinting, and IP bans are), then you can make a billion dollars on that idea.
But it's been twenty years now that we've needed that idea, and I'm not holding my breath. Tech continues to insist that anonymity is more important than accountability. Our users pay the price of our insistence to this day.
I don't think a general solution would be required in this instance.
In this case, as I understand it, the abusive actors did the following:
1) tried to join with an abusive name
2) impersonated a student login and yelled abusive things in chat
It seems that (1) could be solved by blocking connections from any user name that is not on a whitelist of approved student names and nicknames, and (2) is most likely an issue of someone else accessing the student's login credentials, so it could potentially be mitigated by multifactor authentication.
It's also likely that there isn't a single person in a leadership position with the entire school board who is even slightly technically competent.
Next we already have precedent that IP addresses don't uniquely identify people for the purposes of law. It is incredibly likely that such an action wouldn't pass the sniff test if the IP addresses given were entirely correct.
Lastly even if he actually did try to log in with "i will murder u all of u" no reasonable person would consider this an actual threat without talking with the student. Kids are stupid, and kids say stupid things. Time and again schools fail to address the real problem children before things blow up and then use their persistent failures to justify overreaction to the detriment of students.
Suspensions like these are common, especially among black boys. I saw all sorts of overly punitive nonsense, not to mention that we had to queue up for an xray + metal detector every day we went to school. Really, really felt like you weren't treated with a shred of dignity.
If the school board knew that it had incriminating information, it could ask the family to waive its privacy rights, and then if that didn't happen, explain that, without violating any law.
The school admits to punishing this kid based primarily on his IP address. We all know this is utterly worthless. The technical details make it even clearer that this is unreliable.
Also, the teachers uniformly spoke of the kid as quiet, respectful, and studious. This should be worth far more than an IP address. It's not, because administrators consider the opinions of their own teachers to have no value.
AND, let me be blunt here!, even if the kid did do it, which I think highly unlikely, this is NOT an excuse to deprive him of an education!
For whatever reason, many people have this fetish for authority, even when that authority through their own words shows their unreliability.
I also think a lot of people respond positively to stories about cruelty and punishment.
Working with the carrier? Depending on the kind of abuse, it could very well be against the ISP's ToS, and the ISP hopefully doesn't want its users blocked wholesale just because of a few bad actors dragging down the reputation of its IP blocks.
I appreciate the theory that you’re sketching, and I think it certainly has potential. But we already have the theoretical capability you describe today, and have had it for decades, and yet online abuse continues unchecked — so you’ll have to talk more about how and why your recommendation improves on what we have today.
But companies like Zoom (as would be relevant in this scenario) might hold more sway, especially if the looming threat is "deal with this on your end, or we will, with the blunt instrument that is IP banning". (Now, whether Zoom would engage in an IP ban just for abuse affecting a single school is a different story. But I imagine they must have some motivation to deal with zoombombing. Right??)
The school itself might not have the resources to engage in a legal battle, but they could certainly get law enforcement involved, especially if the abuse enters, say, hate crime territory, as it seems like it may have in this case.
(Granted, the privacy concerns that you raise are an entire issue in themselves, and I don't have any answers there.)
To be clear -- this isn't a novel proposal, per se, unless talking to other people is novel :) But, it's just a suggestion that while circumventing CG-NAT is technologically infeasible from the outside, technical solutions are not the only option.
And if it's not possible from the outside, well, there's one entity who's positioned to further trace the abusive users...
The entity delivering service to the abusive customer is profiting from that delivery. Terminating service to that customer hurts their bottom line. They have strong incentives to not only refuse all requests for help, but to resist even the most serious of requests, in order to protect their bottom line.
I’m sorry to rain on your parade - it’s nothing personal! I wish I could be more supportive! - but there is overwhelming evidence that every entity that is positioned to help will do whatever it takes to avoid helping.
If this remains unsolved, we’re going to end up losing anonymity on the Internet. Several online food delivery systems in the US already permanently block Cloudflare’s 220.127.116.11 VPN product by IP, using Cloudflare’s own CDN protection tools! Because it turns out that effective anonymity for all comers protects abusers from accountability.
That’s why this is a billion-dollar problem.
I do wish that the market would work as intended such that failures in handling abuse (e.g. frivolous accusations as we're plausibly seeing here) would lead to organizations moving away from Zoom to competitors, whether it's Teams or Meet or BlueJeans or whatever else. But unfortunately the friction of changing platforms is high, between sunk cost of contracts, needing to vet / compare multiple new systems, training on the use of new software, etc.
Meanwhile, the existing solution mostly just works 99% of the time.
(All this said -- even if CG-NAT is to blame for multiple students showing up with the same IP address, that should be tangential to the actual identification of abuse. Either there's a process failure (students aren't required to sign in), or Zoom's not logging or looking at the right things (e.g. display name changes).)
(Intended?! By whom?!)
In this case, the market is working exactly as markets are supposed to. Effectively dealing with abuse is expensive, and has no profit potential whatsoever.
The market will therefore penalize companies that spend money on dealing with abuse, and reward companies that do not. Economically, companies that manage to sweep abuse under the rug for the minimum possible cost will naturally dominate, and companies that spend the considerable investments needed to do a good job on it will eventually go to the wall.
If "market working as intended" has any meaning, maximizing profits is certainly it. It's very economically logical for a provider to not cater to the 1% or so abuse victims, who are expensive to handle, offer little revenue, and might stay with you anyway out of a lack of other places to go. It might be unfair, lack compassion, and be cruel to prioritize abusers over the abused, but none of these terms have any meaning by the metric of "markets"
But I see your point that the markets are working logically from the perspective of there being insufficient incentive for companies (well, Zoom at least) to invest in dealing with this issue. Negative press only goes so far, and it doesn't matter much when it's the dominant player in the market by far (in part due to design choices that facilitated these flaws -- minimized friction in the interest of accessibility also minimizes friction for malicious action).
If they use Cloudflare, then that block is dumb. Sites behind Cloudflare are able to see the real IP of a 18.104.22.168 WARP user. Non-Cloudflare sites will see Cloudflare's IP.
WARP isn't a traditional VPN service:
> "From a technical perspective, WARP is a VPN. But it is designed for a very different audience than a traditional VPN. WARP is not designed to allow you to access geo-restricted content when you’re traveling. It will not hide your IP address from the websites you visit."
There is absolutely no mystery as to why. The for-profit corporations that provide these services have absolutely no interest in preventing online abuse, because doing so is expensive and there's no way to make money out of it.
[the provider blah blah]
As a human being, I really don't give a tuppenny damn about "the providers" anymore. This has been a problem for decades, and for decades we've had nothing but whining excuses from "the providers" while they continue to do nothing.
"The providers" should have been investing in anti-abuse technologies and systems starting in the previous century. They haven't done anything.
Draconian measures are needed. If "the providers" have to scramble, maybe even take losses for a few quarters, it's too damn bad for them.
There's contexts where that doesn't work. A zoom call isn't one of them.
I'm not sure why anonymity would play any role in terms of connecting to an online class.
But many carriers simply ignore or don’t respond, much less investigate. To the point that people regularly take to other means to establish backend contact with larger carriers like Comcast, resorting to list serves like nanog.
Ultimately it’s on the carriers to doll out the money to support it. But they could easily implement strike policies like DMCA reports have for many. Against both customers engaging in malicious activity snd reporters abusing the system or making spurious reports that waste resources.
However that would mean carriers like comcast would need to stop their efforts to completely frustrate communication with other NOC's etc.
We either need something provided by the government that is unique to each recipient and services tuple (so it can't be used to trace anything), but will be the same each time, and so can be banned.
Else we need something like a proof of work, but that would either have to so expensive to create that we would have to reuse it across all the end points.
I guess we could also mandate ipv6, but then blocking the addresses wouldn't be very useful.
Finally I guess we could mandate that all IPs be treated equally and then companies that can't handle that would have to close down.
I know, the reality is most of the world is just stuck with IPv4 in some capacity. It is probably good that using IPv4 starts to hurt else we will never migrate. Btw. HackerNews is stuck with IPv4 only in 2021 still...
Not sure what you meant by this comment. The kid whose life is ruined won’t know what this is. The people who care about ipv4 vs v6 is unlikely to act based on this incident.
The kid might actually do quite ok as I have suggested in other comments. Really depends on the family and its personality.
What we really should do though is help make clear to the non-tech world what part of what they see in TV is real and fake science
IP address is like the hair analysis of 70s / 80s
The kid is a victim of an incompetent and unfair school system.
> The kid might actually do quite ok as I have suggested in other comments.
He might well recover from this serious loss, yes. Will his mother, who was stricken when this happened, recover her health?
A cruel injustice is not acceptable just because the victim "might actually do quite OK".
Of course, we will never see the full picture. I can imagine, having a kid at home puts more stress on the parents that otherwise might rely on the school for something approaching day care/ basically "storage" for human beings. I find just the thought of something like this distasteful but that might be the reality in many families.
edit: the guest wifi now goes via a vpn...
On top of that, the main company that was bringing actual lawsuits was shut down by a court years ago for fraud. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/prenda-laws-john...
edit: I also probably get paid too much.. :/
All it really did was inspire me to work out how this process works, and I will find that out once I'm free from some various work requirements as it seems a terrifying amount of power has been transferred without our knowledge heh...
Some random dickheads turned my ip into my identity and I want to know how, I don't care much about the bill...
If you do nothing they almost never come after you.
> ... said Scott Moulton, a Woodstock-based forensics expert hired by the attorney working on Malachi’s case.
This forensics "expert" should know this.
> Moulton, who owns Forensic Strategy Services in Woodstock, also said the Zoom bombers’ local IP addresses, which pinpoint the device being used, did not match the configuration of Malachi’s router.
> Lotito said he did not think the Gwinnett County Board of Education considered Moulton’s report.
It sounds like their expert did know, and explicitly pointed it out, but the findings were apparently ignored.
I mean, this is exactly why we have civil litigation. I suppose the fly in the ointment is that it’s going to be hard to find anyone individually responsible, so it’s likely that the taxpayer would end up footing the bill.
In every place in the US I'm aware of, the school board ultimately oversees administrators, and the school board is made of elected officials.
> is it as simple as they're fucking bastards or what?
The most charitable explanation is that they're in way over their heads technologically and concerned that incompetence will cost them their jobs if they try to do nothing. But I'm having difficulty finding a charitable explanation that respects the harm being wrong here can do to the 6th grader.
It's possible; personally I think they're just massively uncomfortable saying to parents "anyone on the internet has access to your children via online classes, they're using it to broadcast objectionable content to your children, and we don't have an idea of how to solve it". It's possible they're just ignorant. It's also possible that they're awful people and are using him as a scapegoat because "a classmate said horrible things" probably worries parents a lot less than "some random stranger is breaking into online classrooms and saying horrible things". It also lets them imply that suspending him will make the Zoom bombing stop.
In this situation, hopefully they'll be accountable to the civil court if/when they award damages and legal fee compensation to the victim.
>Teachers also said Malachi’s camera was on and he did not appear to be doing anything unusual
So he was supposedly doing this while on camera and in class? This case seems so absurd.
The school clearly knows they can't go after him for the racial slurs because he was on camera that whole time, so they chose not to focus on that. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It wouldn’t be strong evidence either way, OTOH, typing is probably fairly limited usually in Zoom classes and usually associated with other in-band indicators (like chat messages in the class); it's pretty likely that the feed of a student on cam and described as doing nothing unusual would have pretty strong evidence that they weren’t doing what he was accused of, even though if he was guilty and on cam you’d expect only weak confirming evidence.
I think you're wrong about that. I can think of about a thousand reasons a kid might be typing instead of paying attention to the class. This hypothetical evidence is too weak to damn the kid, and the only reason it would even be considered at all is because all of the other evidence is weak as well. The whole thing is a farce.
The kid not appearing to do anything else, not having light from opening new windows flashing on his face, etc, would make me far less likely to think it was him.
Source: Have been teaching remote middle schoolers this entire year, and it's been pretty easy to spot a pretty big fraction of those kids that are opening other windows, playing Fortnite, etc.
I wonder what software reported the IP address? If it's the Zoom client then it's obviously meaningless because it's guaranteed to be in a private IP address range (if it's IPv4). If it's the Zoom server and CGN is being used by the student's ISP, then it's equally meaningless because while that will be a public IP address, it could be shared by 100 households.
I'm also assuming the "experts" didn't make the bone-headed mistake of failing to verify the IP address was in a public range, but I've seen dumber errors.
Had a colleague who discovered some of the edge case failures with an app he was building.
When I was in grade school(early 2000, India), I went out to take a photo-copy(xerox) of a study material in a shop nearby school. After I returned to the class, I was called to the headmistress office; The shopkeeper was there and I was falsely accused of stealing his mobile phone. HM defended me for my good character and that was the end of it.
All my life I have been taught to return things which I find to the rightful owner by my parents. When I was even younger I have returned expensive things to the school authorities like Timex data-link watch when I didn't have a watch.
Couple of days later I learnt from another student that someone notorious for stealing things in our school was the one who stole that phone. I didn't do anything about it.
I had nightmares of that incident when I was a child. Mental health/Counseling was not a thing in India(Still isn't for most). I had been ruminating on 'Why me, I'm not a thief' for a long time.
In my late 20s I found that thief on Facebook, He was a DJ in an European country. My friend request was accepted, My goal was to ask him about the incident, May be if he accepted his wrong-doing I could have some closure. I didn't ask him.
I'm 34 now, My philosophy towards life have changed and so is my understanding of science. I think the reason shop keeper accused me was just because of cognitive bias. I'm a dwarf with visible limb deformities. I think the shop keeper accused me, because he remembered just me in a shop where there could be two dozen people anytime.
Now I'm overtly conscious of my environment and cognitive biases of people who see me due to my disability.
If you have read till now, Thank you for your time.
It's the judges and DAs that need to learn.
Even more so now with more carriers doing CGNAT (and this number will go up as IPv4 gets more and more expensive.)
"But I've seen it on CSI! Everybody knows that that's how this hacker stuff works."
Well that, plus we hired an expert who said "possibly", so we've got em!
So in other words, 5 students plus the zoom bomber had the same "public IP address" (probably due to NATing) in this list, and they picked him as the culprit. What did they do, roll a dice?
If the kid did it there needs to be a punishment, but surely education is a key part of what needs to happen?
My sister had a classmate who ended up with a felony conviction for counterfeiting money, using a low-end HP OfficeJet and glueing two sides together as a joke. It was absurd, to the point the sentencing judge made his displeasure known.
(Says the misfit who befriended their SRO[school resource officer])
My beef is the chickenshit school people who escalate things out of laziness or malice. Heck, the teacher’s doubts made it into the article.
The judge is free to dismiss the charge, if he thinks it's absurd. How did she end up with a conviction?
They can't willy-nilly decide not to sentence someone - they merely can hand out the minimum possible sentence (which may be no sentence at all) after finding the defendant guilty.
If the law is stupid and assholes are abusing it, there's little a judge can do - unless they happen to be a constitutional court and can declare laws unconstitutional.
You'd need someone with the power to pardon or commute, which are powers generally only held by high ranking members of the executive.
 This depends on the country, but in some places judges are given greater freedom to interpret the 'intent' of the law as opposed to going by the letter. Sure, the kid technically made fake money, even if it was really shitty, but it clearly wasn't the intent of the law to criminalize what that kid did.
I did not say they didn't.
They may do so - may meaning they are allowed to - if it is obvious that there was no crime or there is insufficient evidence or there was a procedural error etc. (rules for this can vary greatly).
In this case that does not apply at all though.
Don't you think if the judge could just dismiss the charge they would have done so? Do you honestly believe you've got a better handle on the legalities of this than the person whose job this is?
The legalities are pretty clear; the judge is able to dismiss the case. I don't believe I know that more than the judge does; he also knew that he was legally able to dismiss the case.
Whether he exercises that power is a political question, not a legal question. But to this point:
> They may do so - may meaning they are allowed to - if it is obvious that there was no crime or there is insufficient evidence or there was a procedural error etc. (rules for this can vary greatly).
None of those is necessary. In the case I witnessed, the reasoning was quite obviously "the defendant is too young for this to make any sense", and the official statement was "the case is dismissed in the interest of justice".
In the US that is possible in only about 12-15 jurisdictions, depending on who's counting. Some explicitly spell out in which cases a judge may do so, others leave that power broadly undefined.
I wonder why, having seen that done once, you seem so insistent to extrapolate that judges everywhere and always must have that power.
I think the police should deal with violence in school. Kids get assaulted at school in ways that would get the offender locked up if it happened in the street. School is somehow a law-free zone for a lot of offences.
The lack of criminal charges in this case suggests the evidence isn't strong enough to support them, and it seems to me that similar standards should be applied to a long-term suspension or expulsion.
Also, if you think that 3 months out of 12 or so years of schooling will "abandon the kid and their future" than we should probably add years you have to go to school to minimise the effect of aggregated absence because of e.g. illness. Of course, 3 months of missed school are probably below any kind of measurability and natural and familiar influences are going to have a much higher bearing.
The kid is also probably not going to stay in a vacuum even when at home, it is definitely going to learn something on its own too. Maybe not something that will get it a better grade but most likely something rather useful in the real life.
How many sick days did you take as a kid? I'm pretty sure I didn't get close to 3 months in aggregate until I was out for a full month at once with mono in college. Missing three months all at once is very unusual and disruptive.
Anyway, the problem here is not the actual lost learning - we know that actual academic education is spotty at best in American schools. The problem is that relatively small disturbances to the happy-path of social and bureaucratic progression as a kid can have outsize effects because of path dependence, and he's now tagged as A Problem Child forever. He will never, ever get the benefit of the doubt. He'll likely have subtle social difficulties because kids will look at him funny. To the extent that school is meant as a gentle introduction to how to deal with other people in the "real" world, his is pretty well fucked.
Maybe it will "be a problem child" forever. Maybe it will actually learn to be more assertive thanks to that and either end up in jail or as a high performing employee or founder. Nobody knows and it really depends. The happy-path of social and bureaucratic progression as a kid could be to develop some thick skin early. The school in the general case is a very harsh introduction to the real world. More often than not, kids are mean to each other. Either you develop some elbows or you are generally loved or you like most kids somehow make it through.
Either way, it could be, the parents of that kid would or will move to a different city altogether and socially start from scratch.
“School to prison pipeline” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
Even the kid and his family in the article says he liked the school
“ Malachi said he liked Couch Middle School before his suspension. Science class was his favorite because he liked the teacher, whom he is accused of bombarding with racial slurs, and he liked the quiz games they played in class.”
And they also mention the struggles of this event
“ His 21-year-old aunt has been home schooling him while juggling a full course load at Kennesaw State University.
“It’s really hard for him to go through this and to be associated with such horrible words,” said Malachi’s grandmother, Gillian Gardener-Valbrun. “That is a stain.”
Malachi said he would feel uncomfortable returning to Couch, where his friends and classmates know what he is accused of.“
Why would you assume to know better than the kid and his family on the impact of this?
Interested to see your evidence countering this.
I hope, this kid will like science after this whole thing is over still. It really seems, he was wrongly accused (as in the movie The Fugitive with Harrison Ford) and it is nice the family is trying to give him support.
In general, today's kids might work on their projects while at home. I have a colleague, who was sick at home for a long time and he basically learned to program the computer during that time. He has written a game, learned recursion and other concepts on his own and much more. He almost certainly wouldn't have learned the same at school. He programs professionally now, has a PhD. in math and worked at Google. It really depends on the family, the child and the school of course (in case of absence for whatever reason, this has less influence).
In what world is a 3 month suspension appropriate at all? At that point you're basically expelling the student.
This sounds like they're purposely setting this kid up for failure with this "suspension"; I don't see how it's possible for them to pass the grade given they were suspended for 30% of it. This punishment is effectively "You fail the grade for something that is unrelated to your performance" (with extremely shoddy evidence at that).
Even if this student was guilty of 'zoom bombing', why is "failing the entire grade" a reasonable punishment?
I'll go ahead and admit that I got bullied a lot at my first high school, for being a combination of gullable/fat/dorky as well as, for most of my time there, the only person of my skin color.
My last day 'in' the school, I had my head slammed against a locker multiple times by a Starter of the Women's basketball team, and was later threatened with being shot by the Football QB.
For retorting that "They'd pull the bullets out of you" to said QB (Mind you, I had all but recieved a concussion 2 hours prior) My family was first told that I was given an 'at home' suspension till the end of the semester. They told my parents that I could come back in-school next semester.
However, it was not until the *end* of that first semester that they finally said 'actually, you'd have to stay home the rest of the year'.
By that time, almost every school in the district was 2-4 weeks into their classes. There was no way I could get in.
The second half of my Junior Year of High school, I instead had to take night classes with people who were either trying to get their GED, or were simply there because of some form of court order to get their GED (i.e. they weren't trying.)
The ultimate irony of all of this, that first high school, I was a 'D+' student practically. The school I went to for my senior year, I actually wound up getting a B average for that year.
Yeah. Some schools institutionally set people up for failure. In my case, it was because there was a HUGE scandal that erupted a year or two after I left; many of those Student athletes were having their tuition paid by third parties, more or less so that they could play for that school.
Sometimes, you have to let go of anger over a situation... but still remember it as a compass of empathy.
Worse than expelled. An expelled student can pick back up at another school far more easily than a student who remains enrolled, who would now have to waste time stepping through the voluntary transfer request process.
Not that it would make a substantial difference in this case. Gwinnett County Public Schools covers an immense area. An expelled student is likely to end up in another GCPS school for lack of access to any other public schooling options. Long term "suspension" may be the only way to effectively expel a student from the district, if that was someone's goal.
To this date, I still don’t understand what the hell was going on on her mind, yeah, I was irresponsible, I was defiant, as there was some formalisms which I found absurd. But I was a quiet child, who payed attention to class and wanted to be left on his own and was able to ace any test because I did like learning. I didn’t even had friends so it’s not like I interrupted her class with any chatter. I guess the lesson is that some people are petty?
From the details you provided,my understanding is you could've just completed it during lunch detention and that would've been the end of it, that seems pretty fair to me. You were aware of the consequences of not doing your homework and chose to continuously not do your assignments either at home or during the lunch period.
Just because he was aware of the punishment doesn't make the punishment appropriate. At some point the issue should be escalated or a compromise reached. Allowing to it go on for the majority of the school year is the teacher being unable to control the situation so taking it out on the student to the students detriment instead of benefit.
Bull. Schools only have authority over you while you're on their grounds.
Once school time is over, they can want whatever they like. Just like anybody.
They have no authority to actually do anything about it though, nor should they. Homework is just them trying to waste people's time.
Anyone who's ever spent time in a classroom viewing the experience with an objective eye knows that teachers can't be reasonably expected to teach everything they need to within the constraints given to them. As a result, they assign homework (reading, projects, busywork) over the course of the semester to ensure that the knowledge they're asked to pass on actually sinks in to the minds of the students.
Good teachers make good homework. Bad teachers make bad homework, but not necessarily because they're trying to waste their students' time.
Maybe in exceptional circumstances to achieve a specific once-off outcome, but not in _any_ way as a routine thing.
Please, stop encouraging people to waste kids time. :(
Apparently its because of a state law that defines “expulsion” and “suspension” in specific ways.
“Expulsion” means the district has completely absolved itself of any educational responsibility to the student.
“Suspension” means a students access to school facilities had been restricts or removed.
In practice, formal expulsions are archaic. No one has been formally expelled for decades: including the student who raped multiple classmates in the stairwell.
It’s a language thing, not a real thing.
If you mean does an expelled student mean reduced funding … I don’t know. Maybe nobody knows. It hasn’t happened in decades.
When a student is suspended there’s usually some provision made for their education: individual learning.
The district is still doing something for them.
With expulsion, it’s as though the student is a non resident for purposes of registration. I don’t know if that applies to funding.
Sure, we could try treating the student as a person, but that just makes it harder for society to exact the retribution it so deeply desires.
"The spaces have gentle names: The reflection room. The cool-down room. The calming room. The quiet room.
But shut inside them, in public schools across the state, children as young as 5 wail for their parents, scream in anger and beg to be let out."
Its genuinely hard to read stories like that and think about the kind of teachers that exist in some areas. And its clearly systemic in a lot of situations.
If the school doesn't forget they're there. It's happened at least twice in Washington, where parents have wondered why their child wasn't on the bus, only to learn that not only had the school put them in such a room, they'd then managed to _forget_ the student was in there.
The article quite clearly says no. Moreover, “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept.
EDIT: ffs don't flag the parent poster. He's misinformed and possibly ideologically driven (though I've seen far worse), but enough with the censorship bubble, already ...
This is misleading at best. Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length in academia (in gender/women's studies literature) for going on 30 years.
Generating literature about a postulation doesn't make it true.
How would you ever controvert a bad practice like icepick lobotomies, or a false belief like Aristotelian gravity, if the simple existence or popular acceptance of an idea were considered to be its proof?
What words would you prefer people use to describe a particular kind of behaviour, common to, but not exclusive to young men that is in generous parts mysoginistic, often homophobic and violent?
That the behaviour it describes doesn't exist? That would be a truly remarkable claim.
That the term is inapplicable to that behaviour? On what grounds? Is there a term they'd prefer we use?
That the behaviour exists, but we shouldn't slap a label on it? That's almost certainly personal opinion, which is not very interesting.
If the OP would have instead said that particular claims about toxic masculinity are false, that would be an entirely different conversation. But that's not what they did.
I rest my case. It is not a legitimate psychological concept.
Little to none as there is no evidence of theraputic value.
Indeed, it seems clearly harmful and would qualify as child abuse if it were sone by the parents rather than the school district.
The use of this technique on children with Autism is particularly reprehensible.
Edit: To be clear, I’m responding to the quote here. I’m not condoning locking small children in bare rooms alone for hours on end.
One room in the article is described as 3x3x7 and another is even smaller at 5 sq feet. These are literally the rooms we are discussing and that you are defending using for timeouts.
Edit: It appears from your edit that you simply may have not read the article and thus did not realize what you were endorsing.
“How US schools punish Black kids”https://www.vox.com/videos/21507661/school-discipline-race-b...
they sure did when I was a pupil, a zillion years ago. It was called "in-school detention"
(I'd say a 'detention' is broader, anything from a few minutes at the end of the lesson to isolation, passing break time, lunch, and after-school along the way.)
I'm familiar with my local public schools policies, outside violence / other crimes they don't even have the ability to hand out that long of a punishment by rule.
No idea what that school is up to...
I don’t think the education sector is going to attract many high caliber IT people. The school shouldn’t have had this rest on the shoulders of a low wattage tech.
Why would Zoom even be logging the local (private) IP address?
Atlanta. News. Now.
Our apologies, unfortunately our website is currently unavailable in most European countries due to GDPR rules.
Well, the 4 Internets...
I understand the need/want to get rid of bullshit like this from one's record. However, it's now all over the internet and the internet does not forget. Will this expungement include every news article that clearly uses his name and details of the accusations? Will that also include any articles detailing the final results if he is cleared (if news actually covers that part)?
> The Zoom bombers’ local IP addresses, which identify the exact device being used, did not match Malachi’s
And his device cant be multihomed? He cant have two devices?
> Nor did the local IP addresses match any of the possible sequences available under the configuration of the router in Malachi’s house, Moulton said. There were no other routers or devices in the house that could have used those local IP addresses, Moulton said.
> It is possible to change a router’s configuration, but Malachi did not know how and the process would have kicked all his devices off the internet for 10 minutes each time, according to the appeal.
Or you know, setting up another NAT layer on the computer, or any other of many other configs. I mean fair, that's a bit much for an 11 year old, but still lots of theoretically possible explanations
They're blaming zoom as innacurate, but it seems like both sides are making assumptions about ip addresses that might just not be true.
The entire thing is utterly rediculous.
> And his device cant be multihomed? He cant have two devices?
He could. But the only evidence of his guilt is the IP address.
It's easy to be GDPR compliant. It just is. You do have to respect your users though, I can see why many companies had trouble with it
>It's easy to be GDPR compliant.
And that's why companies spent millions on just paying lawyers to figure out what it said, right?
>But when it comes to the cost of maintaining GDPR compliance, it found that 88% spend more than $1 million and 40% spend more than $10 million.
If European customers don't make them this money back then there is no point in doing it. It sucks for us, Europeans, but the EU decided for us that we shouldn't have easy access to the whole internet.
Why do it? Because Americans and other non-EU citizens deserve privacy too mate
The institutional doubling down like this never ceases to amaze.
(Also, 90% of complying with GDPR is just ethics -- tell if you sell data to third parties, ask consent if you want to do nonessential processing, etc. -- and 10% is adding boilerplate text like reiterating your rights. But that's a bit of a separate discussion, I just feel like most people are not aware of this when starting these discussions and it might be good to know when talking about the topic.)
To be honest I also don't see the point of the EU blocks, as you say. I assumed it was mostly just lazyness and unwillingness to deal with the issue at all.
I love it, thanks for your apologies.
Universal health care will be the same disaster. Fight it tooth and nail. Protect your healthcare. Maybe you win the case where your son is denied an online advice nurse because he “yelled racial slurs” but it’s too late; maybe he’s terribly sick now, maybe he’s dead. You can sue them but you can’t bring him back.
Just like this kid’s grade is gone. He fails this one. And you can sue but he’s not going to get it back. The learning is gone.
Constantly beware those who arrogate to themselves great power over you.
Twice the horror is hardly an appealing idea.
In my experience, private schools are much more likely to expel someone than public schools. At my private school they tried to work out who was writing prank reviews of the school online and threatened that they had requested the users IP from the review service. I'm guessing they failed when the IP was just the schools shared address.
Legally, private schools arr less constrained, because due process rights don’t apply.
And why would private schools be better in this regard?
American corporations are notorious for engaging in thought policing. In your current system you’ll get fired and lose your health insurance for cracking your knuckles the wrong way.
This is an American problem, not a public vs. private problem.