Subscribe: The Practical Nomad
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
airline  airlines  amazing race  amazing  atilde paulo  city  dar salaam  dar  data  dot  flight  privacy  race  travel  world 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: The Practical Nomad

The Practical Nomad

Edward Hasbrouck's blog

Published: 2017-12-17T09:49:34-08:00

Last Build Date: 2017-12-10T17:01:52-08:00


"No airline adheres to the Privacy Shield"


The U.S. Department of Transportation has consistently failed to protect consumers against deceptive advertising and opaque pricing by airlines that frustrates comparison shopping, while blocking any enforcement against airline of any rules promulgated by other Federal agencies or of the state and local truth-in-advertising and other consumer protection laws that apply to other businesses. As I discussed in an article here last week in response to the latest outrage, I've been complaining about this for years. DOT's dereliction of its duty to protect consumers extends to privacy protection as well, an issue highlighted by a report and staff working document released last week by the working party of data protection authorities of the European Union and EU members. Airlines' privacy obligations under U.S. Federal law are limited: Under U.S. law, airlines can legally violate consumers' privacy, as long as they don't lie about what they do. But DOT has made no attempt whether airlines are truthfully disclosing their privacy practices, and has brushed off complaints that airlines violated their own privacy policies and lied about their practices. Whether most other U.S. businesses comply with their professed privacy policies is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commissionn. But the DOT has zealously defended the exclusivity of its jurisdiction over airlines against any regulation of airline practices, with respect to privacy or anything else, by the FTC, any other Federal agency, or state or local consumer protection or law enforcement authorities. I've complained about this in testimony to both the FTC and the DOT, as have other consumer advocates and state Attorneys General (2000 letter, 2006 letter). Laws in Canada, the European Union, and some other countries restrict transfers of personal information from those countries to countries where personal data isn't adequately protected by law. Without adequate privacy protections and enforcement mechanisms in the U.S., it wouldn't be legal for businesses in those countries to transfer data to the U.S. about customers, travellers, or other individuals. Because DOT and only DOT has jurisdiction over airlines, the U.S. government has had to pay lip service to DOT's commitment to policing airlines' compliance with their privacy policies when the U.S. has tried to persuade other countries that the U.S. provide adequate legal protection for personal information. A bogus claim by the DOT that it would take action against any airline that lied about its privacy practices was an essential element in the so-called "Safe Harbor" framework negotiated to provide a legal fig leaf for businesses transferring personal data from the EU to the US. After the highest EU court determined (unsurprisingly) that the Safe Harbor framework failed to satisfy the adequacy requirements of EU law, a similar and equally bogus claim by the DOT about its commitment to enforcement of airline compliance with published privacy policies was an element of the Privacy Shield (Safe Harbor 2.0) negotiated to provide businesses with a renewed legal fig leaf for transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. So how many airlines claim that they comply with the Privacy Shield? To date, none. And what has DOT done about this? To date, nothing. We know this not from DOT but from documents released by European participants in the first annual joint US-EU review of compliance with the Privacy Shield. According to the report by the Article 29 Working Party on the US-EU meetings: The DoT made a presentation of its jurisdiction (over airline agencies and ticket agencies on the basis of the Unfair and deceptive practices Act) and of its activities. It has the authority to enforce civil penalties (up to 22 100 dollars for each violation). No airline company currently adheres to the Privacy Shield, and initially 27 entities identified DoT as regulator (some by mistake). In total, 13 Privacy Shield companies are registered under the DoT's jurisdiction . For 10 of them, DoT's jurisdiction has be[...]

U.S. Dept. of Transportation ends review of airline truth-in-advertising rules


Yesterday the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or USDOT) announced that it has terminated two ongoing "rulemaking" proceedings related to disclosure and transparency of airline fees, and withdrawn its proposal for rules which would have required airlines "to disclose baggage fee information to consumers when fare and schedule information is provided". As my friend Charlie Leocha of Travelers United notes in his apt denunciation of DOT's abdication of any effort to protect consumers against bait-and-switch airline price advertising: This withdrawn rulemaking was created to allow airline consumers to determine the full cost of travel, including airfare as well as ancillary fees together with their exceptions and exemptions. Without clear, public data available to travel agents and on the Internet, travelers find it impossible to effectively comparison shop. By withholding this information from normal airline ticket sales channels, the airlines are misleading consumers about the true cost of travel. This rulemaking has been in play for half-a-decade with thousands of pages of testimony and comments from consumers and all travel stakeholders. The claim that this rulemaking is "of limited public benefit" is simply not true. It's not as though DOT has been aggressively protecting consumers. DOT has been dragging its feet, studying and collecting comments on whether additional rules were necessary to protect airline consumers against deceptive advertising since 2011 without finalizing the necessary regulations. But now DOT has officially abandoned any consideration of such rules. In theory, the existing DOT regulations regarding truth in airline advertising and fare transparency, as well as Federal laws giving the DOT exclusive responsibility for policing deceptive airline practices, remain on the books. But DOT's withdrawal of its proposed rules on ancillary fee disclosure is a signal that DOT's already grossly inadequate enforcement of existing laws protecting airline ticket purchasers will become even more lax. Caveat emptor. As I've noted in another context, President Trump campaigned on a platform of rolling back Federal regulations, including rules to protect consumers. Trump is the former owner of a (failed and bankrupt) airline, and he appointed Carl Icahn, his fellow billionaire and the former owner of another bankrupt airline, as his special advisor on repeal of "excessive regulation". Icahn resigned less than a year later in the face of allegations of conflict of interest for which he is now under investigation by Federal prosecutors. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Trump's program for deregulation, as planned in consultation with Icahn, includes putting an end to any effort to protect consumers against deceptive practices by airline owners such as Trump and Icahn. DOT's determination not to address this issue through administrative rulemaking is, as Travelers United notes, a clear indication of the need for Congressional action: It is time for Congress to get involved. If DOT, tasked with protecting the American public from misleading and deceptive practices, will not act, Congress must.... If DOT will not act, the current system must be abandoned and airline consumers should be provided the same rights of all other consumers -- the right to petition their local courts for justice. That would require repealing Federal preemption of state and local consumer protection and truth-in-advertising laws as applied to airlines and airline ticket agencies. I've been talking about this in print for almost 20 years; it was at the top of my Federal airline consumer protection agenda eight years ago, as the Obama administration was setting its course; and it remains so today as the Trump administration is putting into effect its thoroughgoing opposition to consumer protection with respect to airlines or other businesses.[...]

New look for


Over the Thanksgiving weekend, The Identity Project deployed the first redesign of its Web site in more than a decade.

I hope that the new look and formatting will be easier on the eyes and easier to read on a variety of devices, including those with small screens.

For the last ten years, more of my writing has appeared on than anywhere else.

If you've been interested in this work and/or my writing, but put off by hard-to-read colors, fonts, and layout, please give it a fresh look and let your friends know about it.

Is Silicon Valley building the infrastructure for a police state? Yes, it is.


I was interviewed by Reason.TV for their latest report, Is Silicon Valley Building the Infrastructure for a Police State? New AI tools could empower the government to violate our civil liberties.

If you have ten minutes to watch the video, it's a good introduction to some of the issues I've been working on for the Identity Project including Palantir, pre-crime policing, automated decision-making and control ("extreme vetting"), and the homeland-security industrial complex.

U.S. government monitoring of social media


Yes, the U.S. government is monitoring you on social media if you live in or travel to the USA.

Here are some of my answers to frequently asked questions and other recent articles and interviews about this:

I was also interviewed about this for the public radio show The World (BBC/PRI/WGBH). I'll add a link when the segment is broadcast.

Update: The new DHS plan to gather social media information has privacy advocates up in arms (by Shirin Jafaari, PRI's The World, 12 October 2017):

According to Edward Hasbrouck, DHS has been collecting social media data since the Obama administration -- for at least five years. Hasbrouck works for The Identity Project, a civil liberties and human rights project focused on travel-related issues and freedom of movement.

He explains that under the Privacy Act of 1974, DHS should have gotten approval from the Office of Management and Budget before it started tracking social media information.

"This has been going on for at least five years without their complying with even those minimal notices that are supposed to give the public awareness of what's going on," he says. So now, he adds, the DHS has published this notice in order to legitimize what it has been doing....

Meanwhile, advocates like Hasbrouck also worry about the sheer amount of the data that gets collected and how it gets processed. "There's no way they have enough warm bodies to read this stuff," he says. "It's only going to be grist for the mill of robotic profiling."

Listen or download the podcast for more of this story.

Digital devices for world travellers


[Some of the mini-laptops and handheld computers I've used in my travels around the world since 1995. Back row, left to right: Gateway 2000 Handbook 486, Asus Eee PC 901, Panasonic Let's Note CF-R7. Front row, left to right: Psion netBook / Psion Series 7, Psion 5mx, Psion Revo Plus / Diamond Mako.] Among the most frequently-asked questions at my travel talks is, "What type of laptop computer, tablet, smartphone, or other digital device do you recommend that I bring with me on a trip around the world?" The answer begins, of course, with, "The smallest, lightest, and most rugged device that will meet your needs." But what device that is depends on your needs. Some people get by with a smartphone. But what if you need or want to write documents or blog posts or lengthy messages or do work that requires a keyboard, but you don't want to carry a "full-sized" (and fragile) laptop computer? You can carry a tablet, a separate (folding) keyboard, and some sort of case or stand to hold them both in the right position. But that tends to be awkward to use, and the whole kit typically weighs as much as a miniature laptop, "subnotebook", or "palmtop" computer with a built-in keyboard. Do miniature devices with "real" built-in keyboards really exist? Yes. Since 1995, when I first got a computer small enough to bring with me when I travel, I've had a succession of devices (as shown in the photo above) that are substantially smaller, lighter, and more rugged than any typical laptop. On any of these except the smallest (the Psion 5mx and Psion Revo at lower right), I could comfortably write and edit long documents. I wrote and edited most of my first book on the Gateway 2000 Handbook 486 at the top left, which is the next smallest of these devices. The problem isn't that devices like this don't exist, but that (with the exception of the brief popularity from 2007-2010 of the Eee PC and competing "netbooks" -- none of which came close to the build quality or performance of the Psion netBook from a decade earlier) relatively few people have been willing to pay the price of miniaturization or of higher quality construction for smaller and lighter devices that can stand up to travel. Most travellers in the USA go by car, not by plane, and have plenty of room in their vehicle for a full-sized laptop if they need it on the road. As a result, keyboard devices smaller and more expensive than a "standard" laptop have been niche products in the USA and many other parts of the world -- except in Japan and to a much lesser extent in Europe, where more business people travel by train and by mass transit. Few models or even product lines of smaller devices with keyboards -- again, except for some that are distributed only in Japan -- have been widely available or remained in production for very long. "Tiny" in the USA connotes "toy-like", and people expect toys to be (a) cheap and (b) not suitable for doing real work. Not so in Japan, where "tiny" connotes "finely crafted" and "precious". A Panasonic Let's Note is marketed in Japan (and not marketed at all in any other country) as a premium-priced jewel of a computer, not a cheap toy. The smallest current model, the Let's Note CF-RZ6a, is smaller than the first (and smallest) Eee PC in the photo above, but as powerful and full-featured as many "full-sized" contemporary laptops. Like the Psion netBook of 20 years ago, but unlike most other laptops or digital devices, it's designed and tested to withstand shock and vibration including being dropped onto a hard floor from the height of a desk -- a routine travel event that will crack the screen and often the case of most other laptops. I've dropped my Psion netBook off a podium onto a hard floor without it being damaged, and I've carried my Let's Note in a bicycle pannier for months at a time and over hundreds of miles of bone-shaking gravel and paving-stone surfaces. The Let's Note CF-RZ6a is the the best[...]

What would happen if a robot got hit by a train?


A couple of weeks ago, while waiting for a commuter train back to San Francisco from Redwood City, I had an unexpected and disturbing encounter with one of the "self-driving" motorized delivery robots that are currently being tested in Redwood City. The robot -- a knee-high wheeled box about the size of a hassock fan or footstool -- was working its way along the edge of the platform, beyond the yellow line marking the danger zone, where it could have been struck by or sucked into a passing train and turned into 50 pounds of flying shrapnel. Some "Baby Bullet" express trains on that track go past the platform in Redwood City at 60 mph without stopping. I was surprised to see one of these robots on the Caltrain platform at all, much less to see it trying to use the platform as a through passageway, and even more surprised to see it drive right up to the edge of the platform before it jerked to a stop and turned to continue along the platform toward me. I yelled at the robot, hoping that a human operator might be monitoring it, but the only response from the robot was a repeated recorded message, "Let me go! I'm working! I'm going to be late!" -- as if the platform was a right-of-way, and humans were expected to yield to robots. I saw no marking on the robot, but another passenger on the train had encountered a similar robot accompanied by a human minder earlier in the day. They passed on the card they'd gotten from the robot handler with the name of the company that operates the robots, "Starship Technologies". The e-mail address on the business card didn't work, and there's no phone number on the company's Web site. I got in touch with a spokesperson for Starship Tech only after they responded to my Tweet about the incident. But almost three weeks later, and after multiple exchanges with staff of Starship Tech, Caltrain, and the government of Redwood City, I still haven't gotten any coherent explanation of what happened or why. Last night, all else having failed, I took the Caltrain to Redwood City again to bring the issue before the city council. I hadn't planned on writing about this yet, but since I've heard that some of my comments from the webcast of the city council meeting are circulating and being discussed elsewhere online, I'm posting them here in full. My name is Edward Hasbrouck, and I came down from San Francisco today to alert you to a serious safety issue involving the delivery robots that are operating here in Redwood City. On August 9th, I was on the Redwood City Caltrain platform when I saw a delivery robot on the platform, out at the edge beyond the yellow line marking the danger zone. The robot went almost to the drop-off before it turned back, and then it tried to push along the platform through the crowd of people waiting for the oncoming train, playing a loud recorded demand that we move aside to let it pass. There was no visible marking on the robot. There's no phone number on the Web site of the company, Starship Tech. Supposedly there's a 2 × 3" label on each robot with a phone number. But that's too small to read from any distance, and that phone number goes to voicemail, so it doesn't provide any way to communicate with the human operator or report problems in real time. Caltrain told me they don't believe that the city permit authorizes use of the Caltrain platform by these robots. But a spokesperson for Starship Tech told me that the company intends to continue using the Caltrain platform as a robot thoroughfare at all times except 4 to 6 p.m. One of the first things we teach small children before we let them out on the street is to stay away from train tracks. Similarly, keeping robots away from moving trains should have been a priority for robot programmers and operators. This incident should be a wake-up call that the city needs policies and procedures to deal with the inevitable cases when robots get into plac[...]

European Commission to investigate airline reservation (in)security


Fifteen years after I published my first critique of the extreme insecurity of airline reservations stored by computerized reservations systems (CRSs) and made available without passwords or access logs on public Web sites, and four months after the continued existence 15 years later of those same vulnerabilities was publicly demonstrated by hackers inspired in part by reading an interview with me on a German IT news site, I've finally found the right unit of the European Commission to investigate my complaint that these CRS practices violate the privacy and data protection provisions of the European Union's Code of Conduct for CRSs. In the U.S., there is no general Federal privacy law requiring businesses to protect personal data about their customers or other individuals. But there are general requirements for this in the European Union(and many other jurisdictions including in Canada), as well as specific requirements for the protection of travellers' personal data in the EU Code of Conduct for CRSs. The European Commission has the authority to enforce the Code of Conduct for CRSs, and the responsibility to investigate complaints of violations. But I have never been able to find any public indication of how or to whom to submit such a complaint. Saying, "You can complain to the European Commission" is like saying, "You can complain to the U.S. government." Exactly how, and to whom, are you supposed to complain? Knock on the door of the White House or the nearest U.S. Embassy? Try that in the U.S., and you are likely to be arrested, if not shot, if you even manage to get within shouting distance of the door. The European Commission has published procedures for complaints against EU member states, but not for complaints against commercial entities such as the CRSs which are regulated directly by the Commission rather than, or in addition to, by the national governments of EU member states. I'm not the only person to have asked this question. In 2011, MEP Martin Ehrenhauser, an independent Member of the European Parliament, submitted a written question to the European Commission asking, "Has the Commission designated a point of contact or established procedures for handling complaints from individuals of violations of the Code of Conduct for CRSs? If so, how has the Commission made public this point of contact and the procedures for handling such complaints? If not, why not?". The eventual written response from the Commission ignored this part of the question entirely, and didn't mention the Code of Conduct for CRSs. More recently, on 20 March 2017, MEPs from three different countries and political groups -- MEPs Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), Birgit Sippel (S&D), and Sophie in 't Veld (ALDE) -- submitted a new question to the Commission: Article 11 of the Code of Conduct for Computerised Reservation Systems (Regulation (EC) No 80/2009 of 14 January 2009) requires that 'technical and organisational measures shall be taken ... to ensure that personal data are only accessible for the specific purpose for which they were collected.' The Commission has the power to investigate and enforce the code under Section 6 of the regulation. Personal data in the passenger name records (PNR) hosted by Computerised Reservation Systems (CRS) are available through CRS-operated public websites, just by using a name and the short 'record locators' displayed on items such as boarding passes and baggage labels. Due to a lack of access logs, data subjects are unable to gather from CRSs, whether their PNR data have been disclosed and to whom. Security researchers demonstrated these and other vulnerable aspects of CRSs at the Chaos Communication Congress held on 27 December 2016. 1. Does the Commission believe that giving access to PNR data on the basis of a name and record locator, with no password nor access logging, is compliant with Ar[...]

The Amazing Race 29, Episode 6


Lake Como (Italy) - Venice (Italy) The "streets" of the old city of Venice are mostly too narrow for cars or trucks. Transportation and deliveries are by water along the canals, or by foot and handcart. As one of their tasks in this episode of The Amazing Race 29, each pair of travellers had to maneuver a heavy cart through the pedestrian streets and up and down the steps of the bridges over the canals to deliver a load of suitcases to a hotel. In real life, multiple workers' cooperatives have, for many years, provided porterage between the docks and Venice hotels for tourists who don't want to schlep their own luggage through the lanes and alleys, over bricks and cobblestones, and up and down steps. The cast of The Amazing Race is often given tasks that the TV producers consider characteristic of local work. But this was a rare on-camera reminder that, as organizations like Tourism Concern and the hotel and restaurant workers' union UNITE HERE have long pointed out, some of the hardest jobs in places like Venice economically dominated by tourism are jobs in the "hospitality industry" itself. One reason that the cast of The Amazing Race is able to keep up such a grueling pace of seemingly continuous travel around the world for the month or so each season takes to film is the work done by the employees of the luxury hotels and resorts where they are pampered and fed and get to rest between each leg of the race. As a traveller, I am grateful to the workers (as well as the hosts who help visitors without remuneration) around the world who make my journeys possible, especially in parts of the world where the standards of tourist accommodations and services are far above those of most local residents, including the workers who serve tourists.. That's become less and less visible over the years of The Amazing Race. In the first seasons of the TV show, each episode began and ended with scenes of the racers relaxing at the "pit stop". In later seasons, footage of the "pit stops" disappeared from the broadcast episodes, and was moved first to "DVD extras" and then to bonus streaming segments on the CBS Web site. Using a bland and comfortable hotel as a refuge from culture shock, poverty, noise, etc. can give you a chance to process your travel experiences and recover from temporary sensory overload. But it's a mixed blessing: it can keep you from ever fully immersing yourself or assimilating. Regardless of where you stay, and how well rested you are, you shouldn't expect to enjoy travelling at the pace set by around-the-world racers -- or most guidebooks. I ignore most published estimates of how much time to allocate to particular destinations, or multiply them by a factor of at least two or three, even if they are written by people I know and whose expertise I respect. Articles that purport to explain how many "been there, done that" notches you can cut in your travelling stick in 48 hours or a week or some other amount of time are especially misleading. Successful travel writers are, by professional necessity, experts at checking out as many sites and sights and inspecting and assessing as many hotels and restaurants as possible, as quickly as possible. A guidebook writer's trip is not a vacation, as my friend the consummate guidebook writer (and recently also novelist) Tom Brosnahan illustrates with the story of his honeymoon in the final chapter of his memoir, Turkey: Bright Sun, Strong Tea.[...]

The Amazing Race 29, Episode 5


Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) - Alesund (Norway) - Oslo (Norway) - Milan (Italy) - Lake Como (Italy) There's more than one way to travel -- or to accomplish almost any travel task. That's one of the lessons of this season of The Amazing Race, in which each of the travellers met their partner only at the starting line of the race around the world. To the extent we can judge from the edited version of "reality" on the TV show, this season's cast of racers hasn't fared much worse at travel teamwork or argued with their partners' much more than the pairs of racers in previous seasons, who auditioned for the cast as pairs and had months to prepare for the race. That suggests that while the racers in previous seasons may have "trained" for the race, they didn't focus as much as they should have on teamwork practice rather than just individual fitness. On the other hand, several of this season's racers seem to be making goodd use of their experience in the military and/or in emergency services, which often require collaboration and division of labor, under stress, with partners one didn't choose. With experience, most travelling couples come to an informal and often unstated understanding about who is better at which travel tasks, or at least about who should lead when. When you pair up with a stranger you meet on the road -- to share transportation or other services, for mutual support, for companionship, for protection, for a holiday romance, or for whatever other reason -- it takes time to figure out who should lead which steps in the travel dance. The result can be some hesitation and stumbling, as you both try to take charge or both wait to see if the other will do so. It's also natural, if you haven't travelled with someone who does things differently, not to realize that there are other ways to do them than the ways that seem natural (to you), or to which you have become accustomed. That can lead to launching into Method A while your partner launches into Method B, without understanding why you are going in different directions. If you don't recognize that there is more than one possible approach, neither will you recognize the need to ask your partner, "How to you think we should deal with this problem? How should we start?" We saw this when the racers had to follow a map on a scavenger hunt through the streets of Alesund, Norway. Michael assumed that the way to orient himself with respect to the map was to consult his compass. I always carry a compass for this purpose, and Michael wasn't the only racer this season who brought a compass and was shown trying to use it. Liz assumed that the way to orient herself with respect to the map was to observe the relative position and direction of landmarks sighted in the real world and shown on the map. Both of these are valid orientation strategies, and each has its uses and limitations. A magnetic compass can't be relied on inside a metal-bodied vehicle or under overhead electrical lines such as those that power electric locomotives, streetcars/trams, or trolleybuses. A GPS compass won't work in the canyons between highrise building where it doesn't have a line of sight to the satellites. Orientation by landmarks isn't always feasible or reliable in a landscape of similar terrain and/or similar-looking buildings in all directions. On the streets of Alesund, both techniques were workable, but neither Liz nor Michael seemed to recognize that there was more than one way to figure out which way to go to follow their map. Their different approaches were equally valid, but they wasted time arguing about which to rely on. Michael and Liz rehashed the same argument later in this double-length episode when they were getting off a water taxi on Lake Como and trying to decide which path to follow along or inland from the lakeshore. Have th[...]

The Amazing Race 29, Episode 4


Stone Town, Zanzibar (Tanzania) - Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) I've written before, when the The Amazing Race passed through Tanzania, about my own visit to Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar in 2008. If we judged places by events, we would have left with bad impressions of Dar, Zanzibar, and the trip between them. In Dar es Salaam, it was hard to finding a decent affordable hotel during the visit of U.S. President Bush and his entourage and army of camp-followers. My cellphone was stolen out of my shirt pocket by a pair of sidewalk snatch-thieves impersonating staggering midday drunkards on a downtown street. We wasted time at a consulate applying for visas to Eritrea, which we hoped to visit later on the same trip, and were told that our visas had been approved, only to find out weeks later that our visa applications had been denied. When our ferry (one of the same ones the cast of The Amazing Race 29 took back and forth) from Dar arrived on Zanzibar, corrupt officials checking passengers' papers tried to tell us that we had underpaid for our visas to Tanzania, and needed to pay the difference to them on the spot, in cash (they generously offered to accept either U.S. dollars or Euros), without a receipt. It was one of only two times I can remember being shaken down for a bribe in decades of travel around the world. We called their bluff, declined to pay, and were allowed to go on our way after an hour or so in a sweltering little guard shack at the ferry landing when they found someone wealthier and more vulnerable -- a Chinese trader -- to target. But this didn't get our time on Zanzibar off to a good start. A few days later, we had just settled down for a restful vacation within a vacation at a beach resort on the east coast of Zanzibar when we learned of a death in the family, and had to agonize over whether we could, or should, try to make our way back to the U.S. in time for the funeral. But none of these mishaps kept us from enjoying our time in Dar es Salaam, Stone Town, and elsewhere on Zanzibar. You should never judge a country (including, of course, the USA) by its border guards, bureaucrats, or criminals. Dar es Salaam was and still is relatively untouristed: Most foreign tourists in Dar are only passing through en route to or from wildlife preserves in the interior of mainland Tanzania, or Stone Town and the beaches of the island of Zanzibar. In 2008, Dar es Salaam gave me the impression of a being more relaxed and accessible than other big African cities I've visited, or than I would have expected from its population. Strolling through the center, it felt more like a small town than a mega-city. That may have changed: What I noticed first in the establishing shots of Dar es Salaam in the latest episodes of The Amazing Race 29 was a skyline of highrise buildings and construction cranes that didn't exist a decade ago. It was an important reminder that the pace of change is typically far greater in the "developing" parts of world than in already "developed" regions. The corollary, of course, is that it is more important to have up-to-date information in planning a trip to Africa (or anywhere else in the "developing" world) than a trip to Europe, and more likely to be misleading to rely on other travelers' memories (or our own!) of what a city like Dar was like a decade ago than what a European or U.S. city was like twice that long ago. It was also a reminder that Africa is increasingly citified, even though the overwhelming majority of foreign tourists go to Africa to see its non-human animals, not to meet its people, and stay away from big cities as much as they can. In population, Dar is one of the fastest-growing cities, perhaps the fastest-growing city, on the world's fastest-growing and fastest-urbanizing continent. Growth like this doe[...]

Chicago airport police attack passenger on Republic Airlines plane


[Schedule of "United Airlines" flights from Chicago O'Hare to Louisville on April 9th] Many of my readers, and NPR listeners who heard me interviewed on WBEZ in Chicago last week about air travel and class, have been asking for my take on the airline passenger dragged off a plane by police at O'Hare Airport on April 9th. Inquiring minds want to know why four members of the crew for another flight were trying to board a flight that was already full and otherwise ready to depart, why the airline was willing to remove paying passengers to make room for the deadheading crew, whether an airline has the legal right to remove a paying passenger who has already been given a boarding pass and seated, who called the police, and what authority the airport police had in this situation. I've held off on posting this while I tried to find out more about the back story and identify who was really responsible. But since none of the airlines involved have chosen to talk to me, despite my diligent efforts, and many questions may be answered publicly only at trial (or never publicly if the likely lawsuits are settled out of court), here's my educated guess as to what happened and who's responsible. There's plenty of blame to go around: The as-yet-unnamed police, who worked for the city of Chicago and were accredited as law enforcement officers although through an agency independent of the Chicago Police Department (more on that below), deserve much more serious sanctions than they have received to date. So does the city of Chicago for its continuing failure to hold any of its multiple police forces accountable or rein in their bigotry and brutality. (Full disclosure: I write this as a former Chicago resident and victim of "minor" but routine Chicago police torture who still feels the pain of my police-inflicted injury occasionally, more than 35 years later.) United Airlines -- the airline most passengers thought was operating the flight -- shares significant blame, especially for its initial choice to defend the actions of the police who roughed up the passenger and of the gate agents (who may or may not have worked for United) and/or the flight attendants and pilots (who definitely didn't work for United) who called in the police. But some of the responsible companies have yet to be sufficiently shamed, and some may not yet have been publicly named. For starters, this flight wasn't operated by United Airlines. It had a United Airlines flight number, but it was a Republic Airlines flight operated by Republic Airlines pilots and flight attendants and under the operational control of Republic Airlines management. This wasn't the sort of bait and switch code-sharing that occurs when a flight is labeled with multiple flight numbers. This is a different but equally deceptive form, in which an airline puts its flight number -- i.e. its brand label -- on a flight actually operated by a contractor. The contractor's identity is disclosed to ticket purchasers or passengers as inconspicuously as the law allows, if at all. Typically, the flight crews and gate agents handling these flights are required to wear United uniforms, even when they are employees of a ground handling service or a contractor airline like Republic. Regular travellers on some routes come to realize what airline actually operates the flights on that route. But as the schedule at the top of this article shows, "United Express" flights with United flight numbers from Chicago O'Hare to Louisville are operated by three different contractors: Skywest, Republic Airlines, and Trans States Airlines. In this situation, it's unlikely that any but the most sophisticated passengers noticed which airline would be operating their flight, even if that information was somewhere in the fine[...]

The Amazing Race 29, Episode 3


São Paulo (Brazil) - Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) - Stone Town, Zanzibar (Tanzania)


[A travel writer on "vacation": working on my laptop in the shade of a palm tree at a beach resort on the east coast of Zanzibar. I'll have more on The Amazing Race 29 in Dar es Salaam and on Zanzibar next week.]

The Amazing Race 29, Episode 2


Panama City (Panama) - São Paulo (Brazil) My feelings about São Paulo are considerably more mixed, and in some respects more favorable, than you might infer from some of my past mentions of the megalopolis. On the good side, São Paulo is one of those urban agglomerations that is so large, so important, and so distinctive (in some respects) that a visit is essential to a well-rounded picture of the world. You might realize that São Paulo is the most populous conurbation in the Southern Hemisphere, but did you know that is also essentially tied with New York and Mexico City as the most populous urban area in the Western Hemisphere? Despite that, it's utterly, astonishingly, off the international tourist map. When foriegners think of a Brazilian city, they think of Rio de Janeiro, even though greater São Paulo has more than twice as many people as Rio, and an even greater share of economic power. There are lots of foreign business visitors to São Paulo, but few foreign tourists and especially few foreign backpackers. Local people ("Paulistas"), whether rich or poor, are unlikely to relate to you as a "tourist". Because they have few occasions to deal with foreigners, ordinary Paulistas of all classes are also unlikely to speak English or understand any foreign language other than possibly Spanish, which they will typically answer in Portuguese. Brazil is its own self-contained world, and the language barrier is high. Many of the reasons for the lack of foreign tourists in São Paulo are related to "class war", which in Brazil is more than a figure of speech. Street crime is epidemic and often violent, unlike in some parts of the world where it is largely confined to theft and other property crime. Of the places I've been, only the USA and South Africa have rivaled Brazil for the risk of violent crime against ordinary foreign tourists. São Paulo sprawls, and upper-class Paulistas (i.e. those who, like their counterparts in the USA or among white South Africans, call themselves "middle class" even if they are in the top 10% of national wealth) get around mainly by private car. Except for the limited number of destinations served by the Metro system (which is priced out of reach of the poor), urban public transit is slow and uncomfortable at best, dangerous at worst. Like Los Angeles or Gauteng (metro Soweto/Johannesburg/Pretoria), the urban areas with which it is most comparable, São Paulo can be impenetrable without a local host to drive you around and introduce you to the many parallel worlds being lived by different classes of people behind different walls, whether those of the favelas or those of the "gated communities" of the rich. All that said, the Paulistas we met were wonderfully generous, hospitable, and open to us about their lives and the city they love. We couldn't have asked for more of a welcome. Travel can be at its best when looking at foreigners and foreign places enables us to better understand ourselves and the places we call "home". São Paulo is sui generis, but it also focused my attention on relationships of class and urban geography that influence the terrain of travel in many places while often being hidden from tourists' notice. In that anthropological sense, and as a mirror in which to look at the way class shapes cities in the USA, I've never been anywhere as thought-provoking as São Paulo. I highly recommend City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo, by Teresa P. R. Caldeira, which makes these comparisons between São Paulo and Los Angeles explicit.[...]

The Amazing Race 29, Episode 1


Los Angeles, CA (USA) - Panama City (Panama) This season of The Amazing Race has a cast composed entirely of "blind date" travelling couples who met their partners for the first time at the starting line of the reality-TV race around the world. Whatever lessons the remainder of the season may have in store about romance (or breakup) on the road, success or failure at the travel tasks in this first episode of the "blind date" season didn't appear to have much to do with the racers' unfamiliarity with their teammates' strengths, weaknesses, or travel and relationship styles. Road navigation was what separated the winning and losing teams this week. The racers never got more than an hour's drive from Panama City, but team after team got lost for several hours at a time. Why was it so hard for the racers to find their way, even with maps in hand and in a place where the road signs are in English and/or Spanish? It's tempting for television viewers to blame the blind date couples' navigation problems on their lack of experience working with their partners as teams. But the TV producers love arguments between teammates, and would likely have shown them to us if they had been the cause of teams being delayed or eliminated. Some of the racers blamed a general lack of street signs. I've read that road signs are absent from many intersections in Panama, even junctions of significant rotes. But I don't find this an adequate explanation for the racers' difficulties. Many of this season's racers have experience in the military, where one has to be prepared to navigate without road signs or in places where the signs are all in an unfamiliar alphabet or writing system. The racers had paper maps. With a map, an automobile odometer, a compass (something anyone on "The Amazing Race" or travelling independently ought to be carrying), and some practice, it's possible to do a fair amount of navigation by dead reckoning. The problem, I suspect, is a lack of practice at dead reckoning. Let this be a lesson to my readers who aspire to compete on "The Amazing Race". That, in turn, may be a consequence of an "Amazing Race" rule that has made the "reality-TV" show increasingly different from real-world travel: Members of the cast aren't allowed to bring cellphones, GPS receivers, or other electronic devices with them on the race around the world. That wasn't such a big deal in the first season of "The Amazing Race" in 2001. There were a few cellphones (Nokia Communicator) and handheld PDAs that could connect wirelessly through a cellphone (I had a Psion Revo Plus) with touchscreen Web browsers. But none of these devices had integral GPS receivers, and the iPhone (which popularized the concepts Psion pioneered) wouldn't be introduced for another five years. Even for early adopters of these devices, international cellphone roaming was prohibitively expensive. Neither travellers nor locals, anywhere in the world, were expected to rely on pocketable electronic devices for navigation or other travel services. In the early seasons of "The Amazing Race", teams sometimes gained an edge by borrowing a cellphone. But they weren't lost without one. Fifteen years and twenty-eight seasons of "The Amazing Race" later, the ubiquity of entry-level Android smartphones has led to substantial decline in non-smartphone products and services for travellers and atrophy of the skills -- such as map-reading and dead reckoning -- to make use of them. Paper maps still exist, but today the people who are willing to pay for the most detailed, accurate, and up-to-date mapping -- wealthy people, delivery and emergency services, and even the military -- want maps in digital formats, and t[...]