>I find the dishonesty really off-putting. None of these books are "banned". School libraries don't stock them, they might be removed from curricula, but they are not "banned"
You can look into it, if you're curious! Some of these books are indeed banned from schools (even if they want to stock it!), by state-level law no less! It's not a curation choice.
There's state-level law saying it's illegal to own or read some books on this list? Or just that it's illegal for school libraries to stock it and/or include it in curricula?
>There's state-level law saying it's illegal to own or read some books on this list?
Sorry, I'll edit my comment to be more clear. It is illegal for school libraries to stock it, even if they (teachers, the district, the parents, etc.) want it to be carried.
As a reminder for readers, the title of the article contains "in U.S. schools". It is probably a safe assumption to use that context for the comments in this thread.
We're talking about an article titled "The Most Banned Books _in U.S. Schools_", I thought the "in U.S. schools" part provided the context, but I suppose not.
"The law, which went into effect July 1, requires that a book be removed from all public schools in the state if at least three school districts (or at least two school districts and five charter schools) determine it amounts to “objective sensitive material”"
It seems like there may be more similar laws, per sibling comment.
>Aren't there other books that are banned for legitimate reasons like hate speech and racial hate that aren't included here?
I don't know, and I'm not sure how it is related to my comment. I did not create the list in the article and I don't maintain any other list of banned books.
Florida bill 1069 allows parents to challenge the inclusion of books in the library, but only explicitly identifies books related to sexual preferences/conduct/etc.
"Nonprofit hires woman, but she quits after a few days, asks for pay for that time; they refuse, and things get worse from there. But! They don’t turn off her email access to a board member’s email. She and a friend comb through the account, download internal documents, and then ask for a lot of money. Federal crime? Third Circuit: Not until they actually revoked her access."
Considering it was created during a major moral panic after the movie "War Games" came out, by a bunch of politicians who knew nothing about computers (aside from, again, watching the movie War Games).
As a direct result, anything and everything can be a crime (e.g. violating a private company's Terms & Conditions), and the punishments are completely disproportionate to the actual criminality.
See the AT&T/iPad data leak, where AT&T were leaking private information on the internet with no security checks at all. Someone found it, told the press, who in turn told AT&T, but the FBI still investigated it as a "crime", raided their home, charged them with "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization." AT&T go no punishment at all.
See the AT&T/iPad data leak, where AT&T were leaking private information on the internet with no security checks at all. Someone found it, told the press, who in turn told AT&T, but the FBI still investigated it as a "crime", raided their home, charged them with "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization." AT&T go no punishment at all.
I think you are missing some nuance here. They found a vulnerability where they could just increment an "id" and get access to another user's information. They then went ahead and scraped as much as they could. Also this person (iProphet / weev / Andrew Auernheimer) is awful and certainly not a victim. AT&T did not leak the information, Andrew did!
Should they have had better security? Yes. Was the vulnerability extremely basic? Yes. Doesn't change much, a vulnerability was used to dump a bunch of private data.
Exactly. If you find an unlocked warehouse, even if you are supposed to pick up something of yours, and instead of directly complaining you also ransack everything, you’re going to catch some heat.
> I think you are missing some nuance here. They found a vulnerability where they could just increment an "id" and get access to another user's information.
That's not nuance; the information was publically available on the internet without any security. Even search engines had indexed it before it was patched.
> They then went ahead and scraped as much as they could.
They told the press instead of releasing it.
> AT&T did not leak the information, Andrew did!
So AT&T dumping it all onto the open internet without any security isn't culpable, but the person who let the press know that their information was available to everyone is. That's quite an interesting take.
I'm struggling to see the nuance... You just repeated back what I already said, but added that you dislike the person personally, which is absolutely fine, but we're talking about miscarriages of justice not running a popularity contest. If you feel like they committed other crimes (which they likely did per Wikipedia), that is unrelated to THIS supposed crime.
> Was the vulnerability extremely basic? Yes.
There was no vulnerability. You just needed to request a record from a public web-server, which the server happily provided with no extra steps.
Let me ask this: When you request e.g. google.com, and they return a HTTP response, why is that not a "vulnerability?" Because we'd both agree it objectively is not. So then, why, when AT&T provides a URL with information they're meant to keep private but available to the public, and you then request it, that is suddenly a "vulnerability?"
You say your mornings are sacred now; before you made the change did you treat your nights as sacred? Do you think you were always a "morning person", but didn't/couldn't realize it?
Not specific to your comment here, but speaking more generally: I always found it sort of interesting how "morning people" are typically thought of as more productive, less lazy, etc. than "night people". If you say you wake up every morning at 5am people are impressed and assume you are highly motivated, but if you tell people you go to bed at 3am every day people assume you're lazy and maybe depressed. Yet everyone has roughly the same amount of waking hours -- the only thing that should matter is what you're doing with them, not when you have them.
> You say your mornings are sacred now; before you made the change did you treat your nights as sacred? Do you think you were always a "morning person", but didn't/couldn't realize it?
Yes. I've always loved morning time, despite waking up around 11 until my early 30s. I've been told I was lazy, lost a potential job offer because I was always late for work, until one day magically I became one of the "normal" ones :-)
I don't believe night owls to be lazy, variety is the spice of life, but I believe a percentage of them simply have a messed up sleep schedule and no idea how to fix it.
