So, I don't have a thorough understanding of the nature of IP addresses, but in an instance where there is a collision, how can it be determined that it's "his" IP address rather than "an" IP...
The Zoom bombers’ public IP addresses matched Malachi’s — but four other students who did not appear to be Zoom bombers were also listed as having Malachi’s public IP address
So, I don't have a thorough understanding of the nature of IP addresses, but in an instance where there is a collision, how can it be determined that it's "his" IP address rather than "an" IP address that points equally to multiple people? If that's the smoking gun here, then it seems like there should be other students suspended as well.
the school suspended him for three months (effectively an expulsion for the rest of the school year)
Yup. This is flagrantly, egregiously punitive. It's also likely to come back and bite the district in the ass. Denying a student their right to an education in the US, especially for such a long time, is a BIG deal.
This is so wonderfully informative and well-explained. Thank you for taking the time to type it out! You have a gift for being able to communicate technical information in accessible ways. Based...
This is so wonderfully informative and well-explained. Thank you for taking the time to type it out! You have a gift for being able to communicate technical information in accessible ways.
Based on what you’re saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong in this), it sounds like when NAT has multiple users/devices sharing an IP address, the address doesn’t “belong” to one of those specifically but identifies each of them equally? Or, in a real world situation: if a friend comes over and hops on my wireless network, our external IP addresses would be identical and would not be able to be used to identify me as the “primary” user on that address?
The whole thing is pretty dubious. From the article: That should have been the end of it. There is more than enough doubt in the system that it shouldn't be trusted but schools aren't exactly...
how can it be determined that it's "his" IP address rather than "an" IP address that points equally to multiple people?
The whole thing is pretty dubious. From the article:
but four other students who did not appear to be Zoom bombers were also listed as having Malachi’s public IP address, an impossibility since they were not in the same house
That should have been the end of it. There is more than enough doubt in the system that it shouldn't be trusted but schools aren't exactly known for their bulletproof decision making processes.
That seems like a mischaracterization. It takes the blame off of the school and places it on Zoom. The data that Zoom gave to the school was accurate. The school just didn't bother to do the work...
“it’s hugely unlikely that this is the first time” a student had been disciplined based on questionable data from Zoom.
That seems like a mischaracterization. It takes the blame off of the school and places it on Zoom. The data that Zoom gave to the school was accurate. The school just didn't bother to do the work to find out that an IP address is not a reliable way to uniquely identify someone.
Given the facts in this article, it is pretty clear that this kid did nothing wrong and that the school district just flat out misunderstands how technology works. They reacted rashly without...
Given the facts in this article, it is pretty clear that this kid did nothing wrong and that the school district just flat out misunderstands how technology works. They reacted rashly without figuring out the whole story and Malachi was thrown under the bus.
At this point, they should just own up to the mistake, offer the kid an apology, and let him come back to school.
And that's not even getting in to the fact that a three month suspension is absolutely ridiculous for this.
So, I don't have a thorough understanding of the nature of IP addresses, but in an instance where there is a collision, how can it be determined that it's "his" IP address rather than "an" IP address that points equally to multiple people? If that's the smoking gun here, then it seems like there should be other students suspended as well.
Yup. This is flagrantly, egregiously punitive. It's also likely to come back and bite the district in the ass. Denying a student their right to an education in the US, especially for such a long time, is a BIG deal.
This is so wonderfully informative and well-explained. Thank you for taking the time to type it out! You have a gift for being able to communicate technical information in accessible ways.
Based on what you’re saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong in this), it sounds like when NAT has multiple users/devices sharing an IP address, the address doesn’t “belong” to one of those specifically but identifies each of them equally? Or, in a real world situation: if a friend comes over and hops on my wireless network, our external IP addresses would be identical and would not be able to be used to identify me as the “primary” user on that address?
The whole thing is pretty dubious. From the article:
That should have been the end of it. There is more than enough doubt in the system that it shouldn't be trusted but schools aren't exactly known for their bulletproof decision making processes.
That seems like a mischaracterization. It takes the blame off of the school and places it on Zoom. The data that Zoom gave to the school was accurate. The school just didn't bother to do the work to find out that an IP address is not a reliable way to uniquely identify someone.
Given the facts in this article, it is pretty clear that this kid did nothing wrong and that the school district just flat out misunderstands how technology works. They reacted rashly without figuring out the whole story and Malachi was thrown under the bus.
At this point, they should just own up to the mistake, offer the kid an apology, and let him come back to school.
And that's not even getting in to the fact that a three month suspension is absolutely ridiculous for this.