U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors Abroad – Finally, a policy I support.
For-profit colleges are issued new rules by Education Department – OR government is privileging traditional universities
The U.S. Department of Education on Thursday issued long-awaited regulations to increase federal oversight of for-profit colleges, despite an intense, year-long lobbying effort by the colleges to fight the new rules and opposition from Republicans and some Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The regulations aim to rein in for-profit education programs that saddle students with more loan debt than they can reasonably repay. They also try to reform “some of the career college programs [that] do not succeed” and “bad actors” that have misled students, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters on a conference call late Wednesday.
via politico.com
When it comes to the entertainment industry, I am critical of the government stepping in to support their failing models through legislation that will harm the Internet and innovation. I think I would be a hypocrite if I supported the government doing the same for traditional universities.
I’m no fan of for-profit universities in general. I find many of their classes to be low-quality, low-interaction, lowest common denominator. However, that’s not really the point. The point is, this is a marketplace. If their customers find that they are fill a need, then they should be able to compete, with the same benefits that non-profit universities get. Non-profit universities should change to address the needs of “non-traditional” students (though they are far from non-traditional these days).
I know the complains about recruitment into these schools. The recruitment is downright criminal, but no more so than credit cards or even military recruiters in some instances. I once know someone who did that type of recruiting. It was essentially a call center job with great bonuses for getting someone signed up. He made a ton of money, until he couldn’t stand doing it any longer. He felt like a predator, and he was. But all of this still doesn’t justify these controls on for-profit universities.
And, really, cutting funding for programs that don’t pay well after graduation? Try doing that for traditional universities. There are plenty of programs that don’t pay well. Liberal Arts is an umbrella term for those programs.
Universities want protections from the government to protect their failing models, which is completely unacceptable. I hoped that this sort of competition would prod them to change their own programs, but instead, they are trying to hobble the competition.
What does this mean? This means that universities will probably still feel the pressure to change, but they will have much more time to do so. Is that a bad thing? No. Certain not. But it is a bad precedent to set. What it means for for-profit universities is that they will likely be cutting many of the programs that don’t lead directly to jobs that pay well. Maybe this is a good also, but what about the people who really want to study in those areas. The for-profit universities are likely the only places that offer those programs in a manner that is accessible (online, flexible scheduling). It’s sad that some of the diversity will fade based on these policies.
Government steps back from real-name system – oh, please, please, please eliminate this
This is incredibly inconvenient for everyone, not to mention that the requirement for “real-name” is a real censorship issue. I’d also suggest that this requirement is a real impediment for growing Korean internet services outside of Korea.
I will be glad, glad, glad when this terrible policy is reversed.
ACTA Fact Sheet (March 2010) | Office of the United States Trade Representative
ACTA participants are committed to improving transparency in the negotiating process, while still preserving negotiators’ ability to candidly discuss the various proposals under consideration.
This fact sheet provides additional background on the ACTA negotiations and addresses some of the common concerns raised by stakeholders in a number of countries. For more background on the ACTA initiative and specific elements under discussion in the ACTA negotiations, please refer to the Summary of Elements Under Discussion.
What IS the goal of ACTA:
Counterfeiting and piracy continue to negatively impact States and companies. Unfortunately, today they are also increasingly affecting the everyday life of citizens. Besides the often-copied luxury goods and blockbuster movies, counterfeiters and pirates are now taking liberties with common household articles – everything from home appliances to toothpaste. From the perspective of public and consumer health and safety, the appearance of counterfeit medicines and items such as counterfeit spare parts for cars, buses, and planes poses a threat that cannot be ignored.
The ACTA will establish an international framework for participating governments’ efforts to more effectively combat the proliferation of counterfeiting and piracy, which undermines legitimate trade and the sustainable development of the world economy.
Counterfeiting and piracy are transnational activities. The growth of this illegal trade spurred the ACTA participants to agree to develop an instrument that will strengthen international cooperation in our individual and common efforts to confront this shared threat.
The ACTA initiative aims to define effective procedures for enforcing existing intellectual property rights.
The ACTA will concentrate on three areas: a) cooperation among the ACTA parties to address the challenges of cross-border trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, b) establishing a set of enforcement best practices that are used by authorities, and c) a legal framework of enforcement measures.
The ACTA is intended to focus on commercially-oriented counterfeiting and piracy. There is evidence to suggest that organized criminal organisations are increasingly involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of these illegal goods.
Counterfeiting and piracy not only take place in the physical world, but also increasingly in the digital environment. ACTA cannot be regarded as an agreement that only focuses on the Internet. The ACTA aims to address the problem of counterfeiting and piracy as a whole, and seeks to cover each of its dimensions. Further details are provided for in the Summary of Elements Under Discussion.
What IS NOT the goal of ACTA:
The ACTA is not about raising substantive standards of intellectual property protection (IPR) or specifying or dictating how countries should define infringement of those rights.
The ACTA does not focus on private, non-commercial activities of individuals, nor will it result in the monitoring of individuals or intrude in their private sphere.
Accordingly:
– Civil liberties would not be curtailed by the ACTA.
– There is no proposal to oblige ACTA Parties to require their border authorities to search travelers’ baggage for IPR infringing goods or their personal electronic devices for IPR infringing downloads.
– There is no proposal to oblige ACTA Parties to require internet service providers (ISPs) to terminate users’ connections on the basis of accumulated allegations of online IPR infringement (the so-called “three strikes” rule).
What is the current status of the negotiations? What is the time frame and when will ACTA come into force?
The ACTA is being negotiated by a group of trading partners[1] that together represent about half of all global trade. The ACTA will be open to accession by interested countries.
There is no fixed time frame and no concrete end-date that has been set for the ongoing negotiations. However, participants are aiming to conclude the negotiation by the end of 2010.
Once agreement has been reached, it will be up to each ACTA Party, in accordance with its internal procedures to decide whether and when to bring ACTA into force for that Party.
Information on the ACTA process:
The ACTA negotiating parties are aware of the great interest in the ACTA by the various stakeholders, including civil society and industry sectors.
The ACTA negotiating parties are keen to provide as much transparency as possible within the bounds imposed by a negotiating process among States.
Some of the steps negotiating parties have taken to provide more information to the public include issuing a summary of the issues under discussion, publishing agendas ahead of each negotiating round and issuing press releases shortly after the conclusion of each round. Furthermore, ways to further enhance transparency are being discussed in detail at each round of negotiations.
[1] Australia, Canada, the European Union and its 27 member states, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.
via ustr.gov
ACTA is a trade treaty being negotiated in secret (though not so secret these days). This fact sheet is addressing some of the popular complaints about ACTA proposals for digital copyright enforcement.
– Civil liberties would not be curtailed by the ACTA.
In other words, they are suggesting that protections against unreasonable search and seizure and due process will not be impacted.
– There is no proposal to oblige ACTA Parties to require their border authorities to search travelers’ baggage for IPR infringing goods or their personal electronic devices for IPR infringing downloads.
Just to clarify, the proposal would have allowed border security to take your MP3 player or computer to search for copyright infringements. How comfortable are you with this?
– There is no proposal to oblige ACTA Parties to require internet service providers (ISPs) to terminate users’ connections on the basis of accumulated allegations of online IPR infringement (the so-called “three strikes” rule).
These criticisms were originally based on leaked proposals that were reportedly put forward by the American delegation. If they are no longer part of the discussion, that is great. However, I want to point out, “There is no proposal to oblige.” This is too carefully crafted for there to be an absence of requirements. They are hiding something in this wording. (of course, all of this is my opinion and some would say my active imagination).
This is a much-needed treaty that has been hijacked by special interest groups to drive their dying business models, rather than the “original” goal to protect society from shoddy knock-offs. The digital protections are straight from the talking points of the RIAA and MPAA.
The secretive nature of these negotiations is clearly intended to avoid public scrutiny. Your government is trying to sideline you. Big brother has decided that they should represent the people without the input of the people.