вторник, 18 августа 2015 г.

uServicemembers At Failing For-Profit Schools Not Protected By Veterans Affairsr


4 4 4 9
  • When a for-profit college closes its doors, students are often left with hefty student loan tabs and little recourse. Some of those borrowers may be eligible for a discharge of their debts through the Dept. of Education, but others – like the thousands of veterans who used their GI Bill benefits to finance their education – are simply out of luck, often losing their chance to obtain a degree, thanks in part to failures within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For-profit chains, like the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges, have long courted servicemembers and their families to get their hands on billions of dollars in GI Bill benefits. Unlike federal student loans, tuition paid for by the GI Bill doesn’t count toward a school’s federal financing allotment, meaning a for-profit college could actually be getting more than the supposed limit of 90% of its revenue from taxpayer funds.

    But perhaps the most troubling aspect of a new report from the L.A. Times is the alleged failure of VA administrators to warn students of potentially deceptive and fledgling for-profit schools, despite numerous warning signs.

    Although the VA has released an online tool listing overall graduation rates and loan default rates for some for-profit colleges in an attempt to ensure students know what they’re getting into, lawmakers and advocates say it’s too little, too late for some students, specifically those who attended Corinthian College’s WyoTech, Heald College and Everest University campuses.

    For those former students, advocates say the VA failed to properly police problematic institutions, leaving servicemembers in a no-win situation.

    Part of the problem is a disconnect between the VA – which administers the GI Bill – and state-run veterans’ agencies – which decide when to revoke a school’s ability to collect GI Bill funding.

    In the case of Corinthian Colleges, which closed its doors in April 2015, the company experienced a prolonged downward spiral beginning in the summer of 2014 – plenty of time for the VA to step in, the advocates say.

    Despite several federal and state investigations into the for-profit chain’s business practices — and actions by Massachusetts and California to cut off funding and benefits — more than 400 active duty and retired servicemembers remained enrolled at the company’s campuses in Arizona, Hawaii, Oregon and New York when they abruptly closed this spring.

    Robert Worley, who directs the VA education service, tells the L.A. Times that while the number of students enrolled at the school when it closed could be seen as a negative, the actual effect on those servicemembers was minimal.

    But that’s not exactly how some former students see things, in part because losing their GI Benefits often entails losing a lot more than just their shot at an education – it also means the loss of their homes.

    Charles, a former U.S. Army Military Police officer who attended Heald College in Honolulu, says that while he heard about issues at Corinthian, he didn’t’ think much of it because the VA never raised issue.

    When the campus shut down, his GI Bill allowance – including that for housing – was suspended. As a result he fell behind on rent.

    “I didn’t do anything wrong,” Charles, who was just three classes away from graduating with a criminal justice degree, tells the L.A. Times. “I served my country. I enrolled in school and took advantage of my benefits. Why should I be punished?”

    It was a similar situation for Paul, a Marine Corps veteran who attended WyoTech in California.

    When the school closed its doors and his benefits were suspended, he also lost his housing allowance. As a result, he lived for three months in his SUV. He’s now using what little he has left in GI Benefits to finish his degree at National Polytechnic College in the City of Commerce.

    “They were excited to have us because they knew it was a guaranteed paycheck,” he says. “I wasted a lot of years of my life going to that school.”

    Worley, with the VA, says that students who had concerns about Corinthian could have simply withdrawn from the schools prior to their closures – and the disappearance of their benefits.

    While there’s little that can be done for veterans like Charles and Paul and others who attended Corinthian campuses, legislators have been pushing for stricter restrictions on for-profit college’s counting of GI benefits in an attempt to better protect servicemembers from the being unfairly targeted for recruitment by closing loopholes in the way these schools count federal funding.

    For-profit chains currently must abide by the 90/10 rule – used to cap for-profit colleges’ federal funding – is a provision in the law that bars for-profit colleges and universities from deriving more than 90% of their revenue from the U.S. Department of Education’s federal student aid programs. The other 10% needs to come from sources other than the federal government.

    Currently, tuition assistance such as the GI Bill for servicemembers and MyCAA for their spouses are not included in the 90/10 calculation. That essentially allows for-profit colleges to count federal funds for 100% of their funding, legislators say.

    In the past five years, 40% of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill tuition benefits have gone to the for-profit sector, even as questions continue to be raised about these institutions’ graduation, default, and job placement rates, Senators Tom Carper of Delaware, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said when introducing Military and Veterans Education Protection Act of 2015 [PDF] in June.

    “It’s time for Congress to get serious about addressing for-profit colleges in our higher education system. We’ve been bystanders for too long as our servicemembers and veterans are taken advantage of as a result of this loophole,” Sen. Durbin said of the third attempt to rein in for-profits’ use of GI Benefits.

    Introduction of the new bill came two months after a group of senators asked the Department of Education to take an aggressive stand against for-profit college’s exploitation of servicemembers.

    In the letter, the senators express concern over the lack of protection servicemembers and veterans have when it comes to being targeted and exploited by some for-profit colleges because of their access to 9/11 GI Bill funding.

    In addition to trying to enact changes via legislation, regulators have trained their watchful eyes on schools such as the University of Phoenix’s practices regarding servicemember recruitment.

    Last week, the California Attorney General’s office opened an investigation in the University of Phoenix’s military recruitment efforts going back as far as 2010, as well as its use of military logos and emblems for marketing purposes.

    The attorney general’s probe into University of Phoenix’s recruitment practices comes a month after a report from Reveal detailed how the company skirts some rules in order to showcase the school’s prowess to military members, in hopes of enrolling servicemembers.

    School representatives used custom-engraved coins as part of the University’s on-base recruitment efforts. The coins, which features the school’s logo on one side and the emblems of all military branches on the other, is similar to a “challenge coin” given to military personnel by officers to mark major accomplishments.

    For-profit colleges recruit vets for cash [The Los Angeles Times]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uLawsuit Claims Unattended United Airlines Serving Cart Fell On, Injured Passengerr


4 4 4 9
  • Anyone who’s left their elbow and knee in the airplane aisle knows — getting bumped by the beverage cart isn’t a pleasant experience. But one couple who flew on a United Airlines flight from Hawaii to Japan say in a new lawsuit that their flight crew left a service cart unsecured and on its own in the aisle, claiming that it fell on the man, injuring his leg.

    A married couple from Hawaii filed a federal lawsuit alleging that during dinner service, a flight attendant rolled a heavy serving cart next to the man’s seat in the emergency exit row, reports KHON.com.

    The suit claims she walked away, and that the cart fell on him, injuring his left knee and leg. The lawsuit says he’s had to have three surgeries since the incident.

    As a result, the lawsuit claims, the man “has suffered and continues to suffer serious physical and psychological injuries, including but not limited to extreme pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional and mental distress relating to his injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, and special damages, including but not limited to medical care expenses, travel expenses, substitute services, all in amounts to be determined and proven at the time of trial.”

    The lawsuit seeks a total of $75,000.

    United Airlines issued a statement to KHON, saying it can’t comment on the situation.

    “The safety of our customers is paramount to our business, however, we cannot comment on pending litigation,” a spokeswoman said.

    Hawaii couple sues United Airlines, claims unattended serving cart fell on leg [KHON.com]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWhy Don’t Huge Privacy Flaws Result In Recalled Smartphones?r


4 4 4 9
  • When a car has a major flaw, like a potentially lethal airbag, it gets recalled. Same for a coffeemaker, or a surfboard, or a prescription drug. But when that major flaw is in a product’s software — like a huge exploit that puts literally a billion consumers’ privacy and personal data at risk — there’s no universal process out there for remedying the situation. Do we need one? And if so, how can we get one?

    That’s something a Consumerist reader e-mailed to ask us.

    “I don’t understand,” the reader wrote. “If the government can scare Fiat into recalling 1.4 million Jeeps in a week to fix a security bug, why can’t the government force Google, Verizon, and all the other phone makers into a recall to fix an Android bug?”

    The TL;DR version of the answer is, as with many things, “because bureaucracy.”

    The longer answer is that no government agency really has software oversight. That’s because the always-on, always-connected, mobile and digital era — with the possibility for harms to something other than physical safety — has sprung up a lot faster than the law has been able to keep up.

    What Recalls Can Do

    Image courtesy of me and the sysop

    The web of recalls can be sprawling and confusing, but it all centers around one main theme: physical safety related to physical goods.

    There are four agencies that handle recalls in the United States. Each of them works a little bit differently and has different levels of authority, but the thing all four share in common is a focus on health and safety. These agencies are concerned with things that will hurt or kill people, through design, malfunction, or defect.

    MORE: HOW RECALLS DO AND DON’T WORK — AND WHY THEY’RE ALL SO DIFFERENT

    In general, the four agencies split up the entire realm of goods like so:

    • USDA: Any food involving meat, poultry, or eggs.
    • FDA: All the other food there is. Also drugs; pet food — basically everything ingested really; and medical devices.
    • NHTSA: Anything you can drive, and safety items (tires, child car seats) you put in/on those vehicles.
    • CPSC: More or less literally every physical thing you do not eat or drive.

    Those four agencies each draw their authority from a different network of laws and regulations passed over time, so each has a different mandate and set of boundaries.

    The agency that pressured Fiat Chrysler to recall 1.4 million scarily hackable Jeeps is NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Fiat Chrysler did, on its own, quickly and voluntarily issue a patch for their cars after Wired’s attention-grabbing news report hit the internet. But the patch didn’t really have any force behind it. The cars can’t be updated over the air, so Chrysler — through press releases — said that owners could either download the update from a website or go to a dealer.

    A recall, on the other hand, encourages users to go back to the dealer and requires that the work be performed at no cost. It also emphasizes how severe a flaw is. When consumers hear “recall,” they’re more likely to listen than when they hear “optional software update.”

    NHTSA had authority to act in the case of the Jeeps because the software that controls cars can be a physical safety issue. If a chip sends the wrong signals to the accelerator, the brakes, the transmission, or the airbags — among other systems — a car could not only crash but also have the safety systems intended to prevent lives in the event of that crash malfunction. In other words, maintaining the accuracy and security of the software that runs cars is a literal life-or-death situation.

    NHTSA also had strong motivation to act quickly when reports made it clear that the wireless Jeep hack could be a safety hazard. The agency has faced a significant amount of criticism in recent months for a decade of missed issues that led to the protracted GM recall, as well as the Takata airbag recall.

    Similarly, the CPSC has also been involved in recalls where bad or exploitable code can affect consumers’ physical safety.

    In 2014, Nest smoke detectors had a glitch in the code that would prevent them from actually detecting smoke. Since that’s basically the function of a smoke detector — a lifesaving device — the product was recalled.

    That was a bug, not a hack. But if an item like a smoke detector was vulnerable to a hack that had the same effect, putting consumer safety at risk, the CPSC could act there, too.

    That’s why some products have been and can continue to be recalled. But what of items that put you at risk without literally killing you?

    How Do We Fix The Future?

    Image courtesy of Great Beyond

    Given all this, the questions we are left with are: who, if anyone, could be the right regulators for this sort of stuff in the future? And are any agencies currently working on a solution to this problem?

    Privacy and security issues don’t really fall under the auspices of food, agriculture, or consumables, so the FDA and USDA are right out. NHTSA is specifically related to car safety, and they’re already on that. So as far as our existing set of agencies goes, that leaves the CPSC.

    We checked in with the CPSC, to see if they would ever envision or consider expanding their recall scope in the future.

    They, in turn, quickly reminded us that the CPSC’s authority comes from Congress, and the mandate Congress gave them is very clearly “addressing unreasonable and substantial risks of physical harm from consumer products.”

    In other words, for the CPSC ever to get involved, Congress would have to alter and expand the agency’s mandate significantly. And in the current political environment, any plan that involves Congress expanding regulation of anything is a non-starter. So no, the CPSC is not ever likely to have that authority.

    But we do have a regulatory agency already tasked with protecting consumers when it comes to privacy and data: the FTC.

    The FTC handles the whole world of privacy and identity issues as well as the internet of things. Those areas of coverage include hacks, scams, and the entire world of big data.

    Although the FTC may at first seem like a strange place to find this particular branch of consumer protection, the evolution of it makes sense. After all, the agency has been in charge of “unfair or deceptive practices that affect consumers” for years.

    That includes honesty in advertising, as well as oversight about just how consumer data can be used and collected, and how much businesses collecting, buying, selling, trading, and otherwise sharing that information have to tell you about what they’re doing. Because doing all that without disclosing it can easily lead to unfair behavior that disadvantages consumers.

    The FTC even makes it really easy to file a complaint about the way a company handles your personal data.

    The FTC even makes it really easy to file a complaint about the way a company handles your personal data.

    Among the many issues about which the FTC lets consumers lodge complaints online are problems with mobile plans, devices and service; software or app concerns; any online services or websites; viruses, spyware, and malware; and data breaches, among many others. The complaint site even actively points out how consumers can report concerns about the way in which a company is handling personal information.

    So we’ve found the right agency — but in the face of an issue like Stagefright, what can the FTC actually do?

    The answer here, is “not much,” but that, too, goes directly back to Congress. Aside from a few narrow exceptions relating to credit reporting and childrens’ privacy (and health/medical data, which doesn’t fall under FTC jurisdiction), there are no federal laws protecting consumer privacy.

    In short: no agency or commission can enforce rules that do not actually exist.

    The FTC’s authority is derived from a whole pile of rules and laws passed over time, but the overarching rule is the FTC Act (PDF), which was written deliberately to be broad and adaptable. That allows the FTC to be involved in privacy in a general sense, but does not specifically provide the kind of recall or enforcement authority that other agencies may have.

    The FTC has recommended several times that Congress take action to enact some kind of privacy law. After releasing a major report on consumer privacy in 2012, the commission joined the White House in urging Congress to adopt a basic set of privacy principles. The Obama administration renewed its efforts to make that happen this year, but so far there’s still been no meaningful action in either the House or the Senate on that legislation — nor is there likely to be.

    In the end…

    Government agencies can only protect consumers’ interests when there are laws on the books allowing them to do so. For now, we’re still all at the mercy of businesses that respond to bad PR as fast and as thoroughly as they can… which is often still not enough.

    Without legislation or lawmakers acting to protect consumers’ privacy and data, we’re pretty much stuck. In order for any change to happen, consumers will have to tell Congress what they think.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uIKEA Recalling 442,000 Nightlights Over Shock Riskr


4 4 4 9
  • The cover of the nightlight can detach, exposing its electrical insides.

    The cover of the nightlight can detach, exposing its electrical insides.

    Ah, the nightlight: that beam of hope that cuts through the dark and soothed us when we were young and afraid. Or you know, old and also still not cool with complete blackness. In either case, you might want to check if your nightlight is one of the 442,000 IKEA is recalling after a child received a minor electrical shock when touching handling one.

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission said Tuesday that IKEA has removed all PATRULL style nightlights from its shelves and online store, advising consumers to stop using the product immediately and contact the company for a refund.

    The dome-shaped plastic covering in the light can detach and expose its electrical insides, posing a risk of electrical shock.

    So far, one child in Austria who was trying to take the light out of an outlet suffered an electric shock and a minor hand injury when the cover detached.

    No injuries have been reported in the U.S. or Canada, where the pink, orange or white lights were sold between August 13 to July 2015. About 359,000 of the lights were sold in the U.S., and 83,000 in Canada.

    To receive a refund, call IKEA toll-free at 888-966-4532.

    NightlightWhite



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uPanera Also Serves Up Real Pumpkin In Its Lattes, Keeps Fructose-Laden Soft Drinksr


4 4 4 9
  • Yesterday, the news broke from Starbucks’ global flavored-espresso-beverage headquarters that the coffee chain would be changing its recipe for the classic pumpkin spice latte, and the world was filled with joy or something. But bakery-cafe Panera was feeling left out: they’ve offered a pumpkin spice latte for almost as long as Starbucks, and their version has always included a small amount of real pumpkin.

    One thing that Panera is changing about the latte this year is removing one of the preservatives from the pumpkin spice sauce that they use, mirroring Starbucks’ effort to remove caramel coloring from the beverages that it serves. Panera has made a big fuss out of removing artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives from its food items to make their food more “clean,” which is confusing terminology since it implies that the regular version is “dirty.” Extra preservatives may not be necessary, but they’re not filth, either.

    Panera is using the same terminology for the rest of their menu, and lately has pushed their selection of “cleaner” drinks to reporters as well as their customers. While expanding their offerings of cold-pressed juices, iced teas without additives, and less-sweetened bottled sodas, they still keep a standard soda fountain alongside tanks of their own sweetened and unsweetened iced teas. Chipotle is also guilty of this, bragging about their GMO-free food menu while keeping the high fructose corn syrup tanks flowing.

    Panera promises a ‘clean’ pumpkin spice latte for this fall [Fortune]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uExploding Airbag In Volkswagen Under Investigationr


4 4 4 9
  • (Sarah)

    (Sarah)

    For the past year, federal regulators have been investigating shrapnel-shooting airbags, linked to at least eight deaths and hundreds of injuries. These devices, made by Takata, are used by 11 different automakers, but until this week, Volkswagen had not been part of the investigation.

    Yesterday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration revealed it was investigating a June 2015 rupture of a  Takata airbag in a 2015 Volkswagen Tiguan in Missouri. NHTSA has issued special orders to both companies, seeking information related to the incident.

    According to NHTSA’s order [PDF], Volkswagen notified regulators of the rupture of a Takata airbag inflator on July 15, more than a month after the incident took place.

    A spokesperson for VW tells the Detroit News that the rupture occurred after the vehicle hit a deer. The driver did not file a police report and did not seek medical attention.

    NHTSA says information from VW and Takata – who have until Aug. 24 to comply with the orders – could help identify a cause for the June incident, which doesn’t fit the previous pattern of airbag ruptures linked to Takata safety devices.

    For the most part, the previous ruptures have often occurred in older vehicles and in areas of high humidity, such as Florida, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi.

    Among the information NHTSA is seeking from the automaker and Japanese parts supplier includes a list of all models that have airbags with ammonium nitrate, from any auto supplier

    The agency also asked for police reports and records related to the rupture and information on whether other VW vehicles have suffered ruptures.

    Mark Gillies, a VW spokesperson, tells the Detroit News that the automaker is working to investigate the June incident with Takata.

    Gillies say he was unaware of how many of the automaker’s vehicles are equipped with Takata airbags and had “no comment” on why VW airbags are not part of the wider Takata recall.

    The company Tweeted back in May that while it uses Takata airbags, “the parts on our VWs are not part of the current recall.”

    For its part, Takata says it doesn’t believe the most recent incident is related to the wider 33.8 million vehicle recall for defective airbags.

    “While we are still investigating the cause of this malfunction, we believe it is unrelated to the previous recalls, which the extensive data suggests were a result of aging and long-term exposure to heat and high humidity,” Jared Levy, Takata spokesperson says. “We are cooperating closely with NHTSA and the vehicle manufacturer.”

    Recalls of vehicles with Takata-produced airbags began slowly in 2008, but gained traction over the last year, culminating in the recall of 33.8 million vehicles in May.

    The company and a plethora of investigators from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as the 10 automakers affected by the recall have yet to identify what causes Takata’s airbags to rupture so violently. Because of this, it’s unclear whether or not vehicles already repaired are actually safe.

    In fact, company also plans to re-recall about 400,000 vehicles that have already been repaired.

    Takata announced it would change its use of the often volatile chemical ammonium nitrate in its safety devices and replace its batwing driver inflators.

    U.S. investigates VW for ruptured Takata air bag [The Detroit News]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uPolice: Don’t Bring Homemade Toilets To Jimmy Buffett Concerts, Then Leave’em For Others To Clean Upr


4 4 4 9
  • What’s a Parrothead to do when they’ve been wasting away in Margaritaville and the lines to the bathroom are too long? Apparently, there’s a bucket for that. Police in Mansfield, MA say Jimmy Buffett fans really need to stop bringing their own homemade toilets to concerts at the local arena, because not only are the tailgaters relieving themselves outside of sanctioned restrooms, they’re leaving their latrine creations behind for someone else to deal with.

    Workers at the Xfinity Center and police were on the lookout in the parking lot over the weekend for tailgaters equipped with their own portable, makeshift toilets, reports The Sun Chronicle. Typical models include a five-gallon bucket with a foam pool noodle on the rim as a seat, often inside a tall tent. There’s also a design with a wooden box holding a bucket, and a toilet seat attached to the top.

    Police estimate 75 to 100 people were told to remove makeshift portable toilets, and yet officers found seven to 10 potties on the grounds after the show. It’s a major health issue, and isn’t something arena staff are prepared to deal with.

    The Xfinity Center’s general manager said the venue’s overnight cleaning crew was able to “get creative with the porta-pottys” to dispose of the leftover waste after Saturday’s concert, but that’s not something they want to deal with in the long run.

    “We’re just not set up to handle that kind of waste,” he said, adding that he’ll discuss the issue with local officials in an attempt to combat it in the future.

    Lest you think Parrotheads are getting singled out unfairly, police say the group of fans is the “primary offender” in makeshift toileting, and that the practice of leaving out used johns for others to deal with is “unsanitary and just disrespectful.”

    “They’re known as a party crowd, and I guess they don’t want to wait in line,” a police lieutenant told the newspaper.

    It isn’t just in Mansfield that this happens, apparently: A Buffett fan site called Troprockin.com polled readers in April for the top tailgating “must-haves,” and “makeshift potty” was the most popular write-in vote.

    “Parrot Heads have learned there comes a time at every tailgate when you just can’t fathom going into the port-a-potty,” the article says. “Several different versions were listed. From your bucket with a shower curtain to commercial little pottys and a privacy tent. I’m assuming in this scenario, you’re bringing the toilet paper.”

    This was the first year Mansfield police tried to address the issue ahead of time, posting a notice on Facebook to concertgoers to please leave their latrines at home. Officials say they’ll continue to keep an eye out for wayward toilets at other shows as well.

    Mansfield police fighting make-shift toilets at Xfinity Center [The Sun Chronicle]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist