Slashdot Mirror


US Forces Coursera To Ban Students From Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria

An anonymous reader writes "Coursera is an online website that offers free courses from many of the world's top universities. Now, all students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba will no longer be able to access Coursera. The official blog provides more info regarding the ban: 'Until now the interpretation of export control regulations as they relate to MOOCs has been unclear and Coursera has been operating under the interpretation that MOOCs would not be restricted. We recently received information that has led to the understanding that the services offered on Coursera are not in compliance with the law as it stands ... United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera's course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions in sanctioned countries, with the exception of Syria.'"

28 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

    1. Re:education by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

      Sure, that appears to be the policy answer dictated by the 1% for solving Americas internal problems, why not extend it to our more traditional external enemies as well.

    2. Re:education by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously you don't want your *own* voters to be educated. They might vote you out of office.

      Your enemies? I'd say education (with associated atheism + lower birth rates) is a good thing.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:education by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 1% again, eh? Still blaming them for what the government does or does not do? When are you ever going to start blaming your leadership instead? Even if they are enforcing 1%-friendly policies they're still the enablers.

      If government is able to be bought it's only because government is for sale.

      But no... let's keep acting like the policy makers and policy enforcers are powerless to stop it. Let's keep our heads in the sand about the facts of the matter. Let's yet again vote for the status quo and blame big business for the failures of big government. The obvious solution is more regulation. Oh, wait... this is happening because of government regulations. Maybe we can throw tax money at that problem too.

      SSDD.

      The main policy makers and enforcers are part of the 1%. It's not that they are powerless to stop it, they just don't want it stopped. The first step to making real change would be campaign finance reform. Hmmm, I wonder why Congress is to keen on doing that?

    4. Re:education by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My first thought entirely. Of all the education debates, providing education does have a serious cultural impact: it empowers people. Universal higher education is severely detrimental--especially to the lower class--but it still empowers people: it gives them discrete skills and critical thinking skills, and makes them interact with the world around them.

      When an educated person fails, he decides the system around him is broken. This is a natural consequence of education: you have all these skills, you feel you can apply yourself, and yet you are not being allowed to do so. No faceless evil across the other end of the earth is doing this to you. When you are uneducated and starving, you feel there is nothing you can do; all explanations are readily accepted, especially if we blame someone else.

      Education is the enemy of government. Strong education makes government subordinate; weak education makes government powerful. Since there are more citizens than government, it is strictly optimal for government to be subordinate to the needs of the people.

    5. Re:education by killkillkill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Historically, all campaign finance reform does is make barriers to anyone who has a voice they wish to get out. Barriers that only the "1%" and their team of lawyers can navigate through. Guess I'm playing my cards as a nut job libertarian here, but this is one area more laws and regulation just make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

    6. Re:education by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 2012 US election turnout was around 58%, with only three states having less than 50% turnout (Oklahoma, Texas and W. Virginia). While there could be plenty of vote tampering, doing it on that scale would involve many thousands of people and would require balls the size of an aircraft carrier. So that's probably not the case here.

    7. Re:education by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 2012 US election turnout was around 58%, with only three states having less than 50% turnout (Oklahoma, Texas and W. Virginia).

      Are these numbers independent-third-party-verified, or are we taking the election commission at their word? Trusting the foxes with the henhouse, so to speak.

      While there could be plenty of vote tampering, doing it on that scale would involve many thousands of people and would require balls the size of an aircraft carrier.

      Two things the feds happen to have already.

      Pardon me for not wanting to trust that a government who claims it has the right to kidnap citizens and hold them, indefinitely, without charges, to run a truly free and fair election.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:education by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And in every contest in that election and all elections in recent memory the real choice was made by the power brokers who selected Tweedledum and Tweedledee for the electorate to choose between in every contest. Every contest was a lost cause long before election day.

    9. Re:education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, you know - rigged voting mechanisms.

      Oh, it's rigged alright.

      First you convince large quantities of people to vote against their best interests. That's unfortunately very easy. I was reading yesterday a (ahem) "discussion" on returning to 90% taxation for the top tier. "How would you like it if the government stole 90% of YOUR income was a common retort", yet you can pretty much count on none of them ever becoming wealthy enough to qualify. Nor that even after being plundered of 9/10ths of their income (which isn't the same as assets) that the putative victims could still buy and sell their defenders by the busload.

      Secondly, you distract voters on secondary issues. If you get enough people to vote against a more pro-freedom candidate because he's "too Liberal" instead of the fact that he's willing to fight against further deterioration of our alleged principles, or make single-focus campaigns acceptable (Tax Cuts for EVERYONE! No killing BABIES! I'll say NO to DRUGS!).

      Thirdly, organize elections into single-party primaries. This is a proven technique for filtering out moderates, because the extremists vote for extremists, the moderates tend not to show (and in any event, being moderate for a party isn't the same as moderate for the population as a whole).

      Fourth, turn the election from one-person-one-vote to one-dollar-one-vote. Obviously not literally, and dollars don't buy that many votes in the USA, but they do buy bigger megaphones, and sometimes an election can come down to whomever can shout the loudest.

      Fifth, encourage a feeling of hopelessness. "My Vote doesn't count". "Voting third-party is just throwing your vote away". "The system is rigged, so why bother?"

      And finally, give them tenure once elected. Much of the strength of democracy as implemented in the USA is that we have, in effect, a mini-revolution every few years. If a bad idea comes along, you don't have to live with it until its proponents die off if you can vote in fresh blood. But unlike the Presidency, Congress is designed for long-term membership. Not only is there the natural power of the incumbency, but if you can get your guy onto a major pork committe, you can ensure that no matter how he/she rapes the rest of the country - or even your own district - that this critter will bribe the voters with military bases, construction projects, and other perks.

    10. Re:education by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Historically, all campaign finance reform does is make barriers to anyone who has a voice they wish to get out. Barriers that only the "1%" and their team of lawyers can navigate through. Guess I'm playing my cards as a nut job libertarian here, but this is one area more laws and regulation just make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

      What I want is the one kind of campaign financing system we haven't yet tried. All candidates should receive a large, very generous campaign fund from the government. It should be an equal amount for all candidates who meet the criteria of being on the ballot. Then, any additional contributions from any source is considered bribery, with the offering party punished severely with hard prison time, and the candidate also punished if he or she accepts.

      That's how you disenfranchise the monied interests and return the campaign back to winning over the voters. An extremely generous, lavish campaign fund that comes from taxpayer dollars would still be very much less expensive than the way we do things now.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    11. Re:education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "First you convince large quantities of people to vote against their best interests. That's unfortunately very easy. I was reading yesterday a (ahem) "discussion" on returning to 90% taxation for the top tier. "How would you like it if the government stole 90% of YOUR income was a common retort", yet you can pretty much count on none of them ever becoming wealthy enough to qualify"

      So wait a moment, the fact that people have a sense of morality and do not approve of theft even when they are guaranteed that they will not personally be victimized is a *problem* for you?

      Classic. The whole problem with the world is that the oppressed are not wretched enough.

      Q.E.D.

      The "taxes are theft" fallacy. You're EXACTLY the kind of manipulant that I was illustrating.

      Taxes are often a waste, although where the waste is is depends on who you are asking. From the same jar of soundbites: "If you don't like it, why don't you go somewhere else?" There's a difference between waste and theft. One of the biggest differences between them is that you pay taxes to keep the real, literal thieves - both domestic and foreign - from your door. You pay for a lot of other, less desirable (to you) things as well, but efficiency isn't a hallmark of government, and for that we should all be very, very grateful.

      By homing in on a single "moral" issue, you've identified yourself with the second group in the list. We've got your number come election time, sucker.

      If you want to argue that government is immoral, that's not a problem for me. But I'm not worried as much about minor immoralities any more than I am about whether governments should be pushing moralities on others when the very foundations of the Republic are under attack. It smacks too much of worrying about motes in other people's eyes when one's own has a 2x4 in it.

      Just as an aside, I refuse to get all panicked about taxes on people with far more money they than they need to live comfortably because for many years I was paying over 35% of my own income in taxes and living a lot better than I do now under lower taxes. Plus, most people never qualified for the 90% bracket. To do so, you've got to be swimming in money to begin with. It's not a case where the hit comes from people who are barely squeaking by as it is. We actually have more of that particular curse now than we did then.

      Truly wealthy people complain about taxes, yes (don't we all?). But if the level of taxation is actually hitting you where you live, you weren't that rich to begin with. For one thing, you apparently cannot afford a good tax consultant.

  2. This is like banning it from black people and Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    The US is mad at governments, not the people of countries. Are they insinuating that all citizens are potential terrorists? Why not ban it from Americans too because the US seems to think that every American could be a domestic terrorist -- especially those darned Tea Party and Libertarians. Mention the word constitition and you go on a watch list.

  3. How short sighted... by emagery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If, as a nation, you decide that some other nation is an enemy, how better to influence their youth and upcoming generations to become your friend than offering them a good education? All this does is worsen the divide and entrench the relatively few 'bad guys' said other nation may even have running the show into their positions against us. *headdesk*

    1. Re:How short sighted... by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem here is that our laws haven't kept pace with technology. In the height of the Cold War, you didn't want our nuclear scientist teaching the world how to build atomic bombs, and yet every student who went into physics at US university was basically taught the core technologies. The list goes on. Export of knowledge is thus highly regulated. Hopefully coursera will lead the charge in changing the laws, but we can't pretend these laws don't exist.

    2. Re:How short sighted... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      If, as a national government, you decide...

      FTFY. Most of us, especially those who were born after the Cuban Missile Crisis, have no problem with either Cuba or the people living there.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    Because there are outspoken anti-Castro cuban immigrants that form huge voting blocks in south Florida.

  5. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    If Cuba could beat China on the price of cheap electrical goods, toys, etc. I think there would be a quick change in policy.

  6. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because of people, like my parents, who are from Cuba and came to the US in '75. They live in Northern Florida and want nothing less than the Cuban government destroyed and won't vote for ANYONE who even waivers in their distain for Cuba.

    Myself? I think it's silly.

  7. Re:Yea. So? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the United States not share its knowledge and higher education with its enemies.

    Why? A good general education program in Iran/Afghanistan would do a lot more to help fight the Taliban then the $4,000,000,000,000 they just wasted.

    --
    No sig today...
  8. petition by Twelfth+Harmonic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for what it's worth - https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

  9. Business leaving USA by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

    What we have here is that the US politicians representing a bunch of UN-EDUCATED FOOLS !

    The US politicians don't seem to care that businesses are leaving USA.

    By banning students from specific country to take ***FREE*** university courses offered by top universities from ***ALL OVER THE WORLD*** the United States of America is signifying to the world that "We Do Not Need Your Business Here".

    With this kind of attitude coupled with the Snowden revelations, businesses _are_ leaving the United States.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what the US is signifying by banning students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba is that it doesn't want to assist those regimes.

      Why do you think that banning 4 out of 200 countries tells the other 195 countries that they need not apply? You seem to be over-generalizing.

      I also doubt that there is any real loss of businesses from the US due to this, but kudos for dragging Snowden into it. I am left wondering if you might be off your game today since you didn't work in a condemnation of the NSA as well.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  10. This is novel but it's not new by cultiv8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US has enforced digital trade sanctions for years, even LinkedIn has blocked users before in fear of violating export sanctions. However, this is the first case I've heard of the US blocking access to a free service offered online.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  11. Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

    The irony with treating this as banned with regards to certain countries that we are not on good terms with is that educational opportunities are very limited in those countries. Having access to education and the exposure to new ideas it brings is an opportunity to change those societies from within. Other than the industrial-military complex, who doesn't benefit from that?

  12. Re:Yea. So? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why? A good general education program in Iran/Afghanistan would do a lot more to help fight the Taliban then the $4,000,000,000,000 they just wasted.

    Because that good education could also serve to provide applicable knowledge to one's adversaries, especially in the science and engineering fields.

    Think of it through another medium, in the form of those that our military is willing to take as enlistees. Known gang members are generally barred from enlisting, as there's concern that once they've acquired knowledge in learning how to fight and learning how to use weapons, they'll take that knowledge back to train their gang and will use it against the local civilian population. A single enlistment term is a fairly short amount of time, and given the fairly low death rate of our soldiers, it's very likely that someone will survive to return with this training without having 'been converted' in taking their true allegiance from their pre-military-service days.

    For now I agree with not providing such educational services to those living in countries facing such export controls. Yes, it sucks for those people in those countries, but without practical ways to confirm that those using these services are not proxies of the state, there's no way to keep those states from benefiting from the service.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  13. What About Facebook? by guttentag · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Certain United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera’s course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions in sanctioned countries...

    Facebook is a "U.S. business" that is "offering services" to users in sanctioned countries. Only it's the Iranian government that tries to block it and redirects you to a page informing users the Web site they are trying to access is "bad for your health." I suppose the difference is that Facebook can be used to help people organize to overthrow the regime the U.S. government does not want, so that makes it OK. Plus, more people using it in a sanctioned country gives the NSA a clearer picture of the trends, attitudes and threats in that country.

    I'm not saying Facebook should be restricted from offering services in countries like Iran. I'm saying laws should be applied equally, not politically.

  14. the law is a blunt instrument. bans doing business by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of the replies here assume that the US has banned providing courses to these countries. That's not the case. The embargos ban providing SERVICES to these countries. It's not that anyone thinks restricting education is a good idea. The law is just ham-fisted. "Don't provide any services to Syria" means ANY services, including educational services.

    That law is ham-fisted is a good thing to keep in mind generally. "You may not hire anyone for less than $10 / hour" means the retarded kid can't be hired as an apprentice, for example, because his work only generates $6/ hour.