BrotherGecko wrote:
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.

I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.

 whembly wrote:
Yes. The government did have the power to ban books.

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.

I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.

As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.

I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.

As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.

With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yes. The government did have the power to ban books.

Are you referring to the Texas school board? There are a lot of US, government agencies that ban books; directly or otherwise.

 CptJake wrote:
40 hours is standard.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yes. The government did have the power to ban books.

Are you referring to the Texas school board? There are a lot of US, government agencies that ban books; directly or otherwise.

No.

Government.

The question asked during S.C. is that if the government could banned books that were highly critical of of a political candidate running for office.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yes. The government did have the power to ban books.

Are you referring to the Texas school board? There are a lot of US, government agencies that ban books; directly or otherwise.

No.

Government.

The question asked during S.C. is that if the government could banned books that were highly critical of of a political candidate running for office.

It think it would be clearer if you said "Federal Government", or something along those lines. Because, government means a lot of things.

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.

I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.

As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.

With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.

Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.

I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.

As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.

With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.

Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.

Its the part where they can mandate it with the threat of firing if the employee doesn't wish to over 40 hours in a week. A business should not be able to choose to save money for itself at the expense of its employees. If work needs to be done, hire more workers or don't operate beyond your means.

If the law said an employee can not work more than 40 hours in a week without employee consent then I would see no issue. The fact that indefinite hours could be assigned without repercussions to the employer reminds me of something I would expect from a sweat shop economy.

I despise loose laws that can be easily abused.

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: This is the best one yet:

 whembly wrote:

K... "Federal/State Government".

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

K... "Federal/State Government".

I know for a fact that local governments have banned books. The Catcher in the Rye springs to mind, so does Flowers for Algernon. Both of which happened after Gitlow.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: This is the best one yet:

Hat tip to you, sir. That was well played.

 whembly wrote:

I thought Catcher in the Rye was banned locally... like at school.

 whembly wrote:

Even so, if taken to court, I expect 1st Amendment challenges.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I thought Catcher in the Rye was banned locally... like at school.

Yes, that is what I said. The point was that, local, US government have banned books.

 whembly wrote:

Even so, if taken to court, I expect 1st Amendment challenges.

There would be challenges, but it is questionable as to whether or not the cases would get to Federal Court.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.

I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.

As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.

With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.

Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.

Its the part where they can mandate it with the threat of firing if the employee doesn't wish to over 40 hours in a week. A business should not be able to choose to save money for itself at the expense of its employees. If work needs to be done, hire more workers or don't operate beyond your means.

If the law said an employee can not work more than 40 hours in a week without employee consent then I would see no issue. The fact that indefinite hours could be assigned without repercussions to the employer reminds me of something I would expect from a sweat shop economy.

I despise loose laws that can be easily abused.

In response, the DNC has suspended the Sanders campaign from the party’s voter file — a move that could cripple the senator just weeks before the start of the primary. The Sanders campaign staffer who accessed the data has been fired.

The Democratic National Committee has suspended Bernie Sanders’ access to the party’s 50-state voter file in response to a software glitch that allowed the Sanders campaign to access Hillary Clinton’s internal voter data.

The DNC move effectively freezes Sanders’ field organizing program six weeks from the first caucuses and primaries.

The breach occurred on Wednesday, a DNC official confirmed, through the NGP VAN, the leading technology company that allows campaigns to identify voters, as well as monitor their preferences and leanings, in what’s called the 50-state voter file. For a “brief window” — about 30 minutes, an official said — a bug in the software exposed the campaigns’ internal “voter ID” data.

During that period, the Sanders campaign discovered the breach, accessed the Clinton campaign’s data, then called the vendor to point out the flaw, according to the official. The DNC has since cut off Sanders’s access to the voter file — until his campaign officials can “prove” they’ve deleted the Clinton data.

“The DNC places a high priority on maintaining the security of our system and protecting the data on it,” said the committee’s communications director, Luis Miranda. “We are working with our campaigns and the vendor to have full clarity on the extent of the breach, ensure that this isolated incident does not happen again, and to enable our campaigns to continue engaging voters on the issues that matter most to them and their families.”

The period in which proprietary voter file data was available to all campaigns did not affect the overall integrity of the data itself, according to the DNC. No private data was leaked outside the NGP system. The DNC official also stressed that the breach was the fault of the vendor NGP VAN, not the DNC. Still, the DNC is ultimately considered responsible for the security of the NGP VAN.

The Sanders campaign also laid the blame at the feet of NGP VAN. “Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program continues to make serious errors,” Michael Briggs, Sanders’s top communications aide, told BuzzFeed News.

“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,” said Briggs. “At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
The Sanders aide who accessed the Clinton campaign data has been fired, Briggs said.

The incident could pose a devastating setback for Sanders so close to the start of the Democratic primary: Until access is restored to the NGP VAN, the candidate’s organizers will have to perform the basic functions of the field program — phone banks, voter contact, visibility — without an electronic system centralizing their efforts.

“After discussion with the DNC it became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Briggs said. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”

Miranda said that the party has directed the NGP VAN to “conduct a thorough analysis to identify any users who accessed the data, what actions they took in the system, and to report on the findings to the Party and any affected campaign.”

The organization will also begin a review process with every Democratic campaign and NGP VAN user, said Miranda, to “ensure they understand and abide by the rules governing the use of the system.”

 whembly wrote:
This seems ominous...

Bernie Sanders Campaign Accessed Confidential Clinton Data

In response, the DNC has suspended the Sanders campaign from the party’s voter file — a move that could cripple the senator just weeks before the start of the primary. The Sanders campaign staffer who accessed the data has been fired.

The Democratic National Committee has suspended Bernie Sanders’ access to the party’s 50-state voter file in response to a software glitch that allowed the Sanders campaign to access Hillary Clinton’s internal voter data.

The DNC move effectively freezes Sanders’ field organizing program six weeks from the first caucuses and primaries.

The breach occurred on Wednesday, a DNC official confirmed, through the NGP VAN, the leading technology company that allows campaigns to identify voters, as well as monitor their preferences and leanings, in what’s called the 50-state voter file. For a “brief window” — about 30 minutes, an official said — a bug in the software exposed the campaigns’ internal “voter ID” data.

During that period, the Sanders campaign discovered the breach, accessed the Clinton campaign’s data, then called the vendor to point out the flaw, according to the official. The DNC has since cut off Sanders’s access to the voter file — until his campaign officials can “prove” they’ve deleted the Clinton data.

“The DNC places a high priority on maintaining the security of our system and protecting the data on it,” said the committee’s communications director, Luis Miranda. “We are working with our campaigns and the vendor to have full clarity on the extent of the breach, ensure that this isolated incident does not happen again, and to enable our campaigns to continue engaging voters on the issues that matter most to them and their families.”

The period in which proprietary voter file data was available to all campaigns did not affect the overall integrity of the data itself, according to the DNC. No private data was leaked outside the NGP system. The DNC official also stressed that the breach was the fault of the vendor NGP VAN, not the DNC. Still, the DNC is ultimately considered responsible for the security of the NGP VAN.

The Sanders campaign also laid the blame at the feet of NGP VAN. “Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program continues to make serious errors,” Michael Briggs, Sanders’s top communications aide, told BuzzFeed News.

“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,” said Briggs. “At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
The Sanders aide who accessed the Clinton campaign data has been fired, Briggs said.

The incident could pose a devastating setback for Sanders so close to the start of the Democratic primary: Until access is restored to the NGP VAN, the candidate’s organizers will have to perform the basic functions of the field program — phone banks, voter contact, visibility — without an electronic system centralizing their efforts.

“After discussion with the DNC it became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Briggs said. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”

Miranda said that the party has directed the NGP VAN to “conduct a thorough analysis to identify any users who accessed the data, what actions they took in the system, and to report on the findings to the Party and any affected campaign.”

The organization will also begin a review process with every Democratic campaign and NGP VAN user, said Miranda, to “ensure they understand and abide by the rules governing the use of the system.”

So... I guess the Clinton campaigned got Watergated™?

But hey... why should Bernie be held to a different standard than hackers, Russian or Chinese intelligence service data miners, international terrorists or anyone else??

 whembly wrote:

A school banning books because of it's mature nature is not the same thing as the Federal government banning books/movies/"whichever media" on a political candidate.

 whembly wrote:

"We've done it before" isn't a good argument.

 whembly wrote:

I disagree. There's a difference in desire to overturn a schoolboard ban over books like Catcher in the Rye, vs a book critical over a current candidate.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I disagree. There's a difference in desire to overturn a schoolboard ban over books like Catcher in the Rye, vs a book critical over a current candidate.

What about a book that sponsors a position held by a current candidate? Like Catcher?

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone know if Trump launch Commercial campaign ads yet or is he riding on all the free press coverage.....

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday threatened to take the Democratic National Committee to federal court if the party organization doesn't restore access to a crucial voter database.

The internal warfare exploded after the DNC cut off Sanders from the database and said the Vermont senator's presidential campaign exploited a software error to improperly access confidential voter information collected by Hillary Clinton's team.

The revelation poses a setback for Sanders, who is mounting a liberal challenge to the former secretary of state. The DNC database is a goldmine of information about voters and being blocked from it could complicate Sanders' outreach efforts. The timing is also challenging, just weeks before Clinton and Sanders are slated to compete in the Iowa caucuses.

And coming the day before a Democratic debate, the developments fueled a long-held belief in the Sanders camp and among his allies that the DNC has stacked the deck in favor of Clinton.

At a press conference in Washington on Friday, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver accused the DNC of trying to sabotage the campaign and he vowed to fight the DNC in federal court if the campaign's access to the data is not quickly restored.

'Inappropriate overreaction'
"The DNC, in an inappropriate overreaction, has denied us access to our own data," Weaver said. "In other words, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee is actively trying to undermine our campaign ... If they hold our data hostage, we will be in federal court this afternoon seeking immediate relief."

He added, "The DNC is clearly acting in a heavy-handed way, in an unprecendented way. I would like to see another instance where a presidential campaign had their data -- their own data -- withheld under similar circumstances."

The Sanders campaign is planning to seek an injunction against the DNC Friday afternoon, claiming irreparable harm and seeking immediate access to the voter file system, a campaign aide said, adding there was no expectation the DNC would grant access before the close of business Friday.

The database breach was first reported by The Washington Post. Clinton's campaign issued a statement Friday afternoon calling for the Sanders campaign and the DNC to "work expeditiously to ensure that our data is not in the Sanders campaign's account and that the Sanders campaign only have access to their own data."

Weaver said the problem with the database's security dated back to October.

"We were very concerned that large amounts of our own data was being downloaded and we contacted the DNC to remedy the situation," he said. "We talked to them and we were assured that this was going to be taken care of. But apparently they are not competent in terms of maintaining the security of their data between the campaigns."

The DNC, however, had a very different story.

Shortly after Weaver's press conference, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said suspending the Sanders' campaign's access was the only way to ensure the voter file was properly safeguarded.

'Protect' voter file
"That is the only way that we can make sure that we can protect our significant asset that is the voter file and its integrity," Wasserman Schultz said on CNN.

She said "multiple staffers" from the Sanders campaign downloaded information that they did not have the right to collect.

"They not only viewed it, but they exported it and they downloaded it," Wasserman Schultz told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We don't know the depth of what they actually viewed and downloaded. We have to make sure that they did not manipulate the information."

She added, "That is just like if you walked into someone's home when the door was unlocked and took things that don't belong to you in order to use them for your own benefit. That's inappropriate. Unacceptable."

The DNC also sent out a strongly worded message from Wasserman Schultz to its members accusing the Sanders campaign of improper conduct.

"Over the course of approximately 45 minutes, staffers of the Bernie Sanders campaign inappropriately accessed voter targeting data belonging to the Hillary Clinton campaign," Wasserman Schultz said in the message.

"Once the DNC became aware that the Sanders campaign had inappropriately and systematically accessed Clinton campaign data, and in doing so violated the agreement that all the presidential campaigns have signed with the DNC, as the agreement provides, we directed NGP VAN [the vendor that supplies access to the database] to suspend the Sanders campaign's access to the system until the DNC is provided with a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed," she added.

Fired Sanders staffer
Josh Uretsky, Sanders' national data director who was fired Thursday by the campaign for accessing the database, told CNN Friday that he was not trying to look at Clinton's data and denied that voter file information had been downloaded.

"We knew there was a security breach in the data, and we were just trying to understand it and what was happening," Uretsky said.

He said that none of the data the Sanders campaign accessed on Wednesday "left the system that day" and denied that he or his staff "downloaded any individual level voter file data."

Uretsky said he and his team downloaded only phone numbers but did so to alert the DNC and NGP VAN that the Sanders campaign was aware the campaigns' voter info in the DNC database wasn't being properly protected.

"We knew that what we were doing was being recorded," he told CNN. "We didn't try to be sneaky at all. They can argue that we shouldn't have done it but we did not in any way try to deceive them. We created the records of it having been done and we did not make any attempt to use it for strategic purposes."

Ethan Roeder, Barack Obama's data director in 2008 and 2012, said the biggest problem created by being barred from the database is the fact that Sanders' volunteers will not be able to use the voter file to make calls and knock on doors for at least the next few days.

"I think the pain is compounded each additional day that they don't have access to the file," Roeder said. "It definitely has an impact on their operations. Especially as close as we are to caucuses and primaries, it becomes a serious problem."

NGP VAN, the database vendor, issued a statement Friday saying the DNC had instructed the company to remove the Sanders campaign's access to the database.

"We are confident at this point that no campaigns have access to or have retained any voter file data of any other clients; with one possible exception, one of the presidential campaigns," the company said, adding that it was investigating the breach and would report back to the DNC.

Sanders supporters react
Sanders supporters and liberal groups have reacted to the news of Sanders' campaign being punished by questioning the neutrality of the DNC, hinting that the body is in the tank for Clinton.

"The Democratic National Committee's decision to attack the campaign that figured out the problem, rather than go after the vendor that made the mistake, is profoundly damaging to the party's Democratic process," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal group that endorsed Sanders this week.

"DNC leaders should immediately reverse this disturbing decision before the committee does even more to bring its neutrality in the race for President into question," he added.

Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager, said of the DNC, "In this case, it looks like they are trying to help the Clinton campaign."

"We are taking on the establishment and I'm sure there are people within the Democratic establishment who are not happy about the overwhelming success that Bernie Sanders is having all across this country," he added. "But we are determined to win this campaign and we're going to win this campaign by talking about the issues that are important to the American people. To do that we are going to need our data, which has been stolen by the DNC."