Slashdot Mirror

I think your "motorcyles to Mack trucks" analogy is about right. My affiliation with Airtreks.com is described in detail in a "Disclosures" section of each of my books and on the Disclosures and Disclaimers page of my Web site, which is linked from my home page and every page of my blog (including each article in this series), and which goes into more detail than that of any other travel author, journalist, or blogger I know. Because it seemed particularly relevant, I also mentioned it inline within the article to which it most pertained.

ICANN's New Commitment to Transparency Arrives Via Secret Process (more background here)

If you want to request your own records, do so ASAP: Even while stalling on responses to pending requests and appeals -- some unanswered after almost 2 years -- the DHS has recently moved to exempt more of this data from disclosure or requirements for accuracy, relevance, etc. Even more Privacy Act exemptions for PNR's and other "Automated Targeting System" data are pending, and could be finalized at any time. BTW, if you travelled to, from, or via the EU, or on an EU-based airline, or made reservations or bought tickets in the EU or through an EU-based company, or if your reservations were stored in the EU-based CRS Amadeus, you also have the right to request your travel records from these travel companies.

If you want to request your own records, do so ASAP: Even while stalling on responses to pending requests and appeals -- some unanswered after almost 2 years -- the DHS has recently moved to exempt more of this data from disclosure or requirements for accuracy, relevance, etc. Even more Privacy Act exemptions for PNR's and other "Automated Targeting System" data are pending, and could be finalized at any time. BTW, if you travelled to, from, or via the EU, or on an EU-based airline, or made reservations or bought tickets in the EU or through an EU-based company, or if your reservations were stored in the EU-based CRS Amadeus, you also have the right to request your travel records from these travel companies.

If you want to request your own records, do so ASAP: Even while stalling on responses to pending requests and appeals -- some unanswered after almost 2 years -- the DHS has recently moved to exempt more of this data from disclosure or requirements for accuracy, relevance, etc. Even more Privacy Act exemptions for PNR's and other "Automated Targeting System" data are pending, and could be finalized at any time. BTW, if you travelled to, from, or via the EU, or on an EU-based airline, or made reservations or bought tickets in the EU or through an EU-based company, or if your reservations were stored in the EU-based CRS Amadeus, you also have the right to request your travel records from these travel companies.

Since the US and UK have mandated biometric passport data, they would be collecting biometric data anyway.

Funny, that's the same excuse they gave us in the UK! Seems like every government is trying to blame other governments for requiring biometric passports. Where does the requirement actually come from? The International Civil Aviation Organization. Why is an opaque, unelected and unaccountable committee dictating the domestic policy of major powers? Interesting question.

Just try questioning anything at the airport:

Here's a travel writer and book author's account of what happened when some airport contractors asked to see his ID and he dared to ask them who they were. (Do you show your ID to anyone who comes up to you?)

Basically, they didn't like someone questioning their authority, falsely claimed to be federal TSA agents, then got the real TSA involved, who turned him over to police.

The travel writer later used FOIA requests to get the TSA's and police accounts of what happened. It's interesting to see what was in the reports and the way his behavior was described.

Hot Topic: "Ver are your exit papers?"

No this is not about Air Traffic Control or about In-Flight Entertainment. It's about travel and after Jan1 2007, leaving the USA may get harder...or become impossible. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed that all airlines, cruise ships, and private vessels be required to obtain a clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States. In January, US citizens will need a passport to get back in from Mexico or Canada; however, permission will be pre-required from the DHS if you wish to leave regardless what passport you hold. No approval (or no answer) and you will not be permitted to leave the USA. While the DHS probably decided that the existing rule that permits manifest transmission to the DHS no later than 15 minutes after the vessel has left did not fully solve the problem. Vulnerability for mischief still existed and that a pre-approval approach solved that problem. The NPRM time period for comments has passed and DHS has yet to make a pronouncement, but travelers, airlines, civil libertarians, and those worried about stolen identity had better pay attention.

This all began in December of 2004, when the US congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, calling for the Department of Homeland Security to pen a safety procedure to prevent the possibility of individuals that they believe to have the wrong intent from flying. One problem is, it is their sole determination, done in secrecy, with no court of last resort, no review, no contest. The new policy would require airlines to submit a manifest 60 minutes before each international flight, to or from the US, to obtain the approval of the travelers onboard. No approval, no travel. While it is not our intent to subvert US security decisions, we want to advise our readers that they should be aware of the total impact of these impending regulations. Airlines will be required to collect, store and transmit passenger data beyond what is presently in a passenger's passport. Obtaining, storing, retrieving, safeguarding and IT changes are estimated to cost airlines over $1 Billion dollars over the next 10 years. I think we can safely say that this will end last minute travel changes or possibly even impact travelers who are victims of late arrivals. What about data security? What if your passport expires overseas? What if your international flight is diverted to a US airport? Hey, what if your subject to a data error? Believe IFExpress, you have not heard the end of this.

You might want to read one of the particularly interesting and well thought out responses to the proposed rulemaking here

Hot Topic: "Ver are your exit papers?"

No this is not about Air Traffic Control or about In-Flight Entertainment. It's about travel and after Jan1 2007, leaving the USA may get harder...or become impossible. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed that all airlines, cruise ships, and private vessels be required to obtain a clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States. In January, US citizens will need a passport to get back in from Mexico or Canada; however, permission will be pre-required from the DHS if you wish to leave regardless what passport you hold. No approval (or no answer) and you will not be permitted to leave the USA. While the DHS probably decided that the existing rule that permits manifest transmission to the DHS no later than 15 minutes after the vessel has left did not fully solve the problem. Vulnerability for mischief still existed and that a pre-approval approach solved that problem. The NPRM time period for comments has passed and DHS has yet to make a pronouncement, but travelers, airlines, civil libertarians, and those worried about stolen identity had better pay attention.

This all began in December of 2004, when the US congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, calling for the Department of Homeland Security to pen a safety procedure to prevent the possibility of individuals that they believe to have the wrong intent from flying. One problem is, it is their sole determination, done in secrecy, with no court of last resort, no review, no contest. The new policy would require airlines to submit a manifest 60 minutes before each international flight, to or from the US, to obtain the approval of the travelers onboard. No approval, no travel. While it is not our intent to subvert US security decisions, we want to advise our readers that they should be aware of the total impact of these impending regulations. Airlines will be required to collect, store and transmit passenger data beyond what is presently in a passenger's passport. Obtaining, storing, retrieving, safeguarding and IT changes are estimated to cost airlines over $1 Billion dollars over the next 10 years. I think we can safely say that this will end last minute travel changes or possibly even impact travelers who are victims of late arrivals. What about data security? What if your passport expires overseas? What if your international flight is diverted to a US airport? Hey, what if your subject to a data error? Believe IFExpress, you have not heard the end of this.

You might want to read one of the particularly interesting and well thought out responses to the proposed rulemaking here

A passport has an RFID implanted if it has this symbol.

I renewed mine about 1.5 months ago and didn't have it.

The link in the Wired New story is broken -- Regulations.gov doesn't use static URL's for individual documents.

The Identity Project comments, including as an appendix the text of the relevant law, are at:

http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf

Those comments also expain how the "Automated Targeting System" would include information on domestic flights and travelers, in addition to international travel records.

There's more background on my blog, and the Identity Project blog:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001184.html

http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/12/05/every-travel er-is-a-target/

The link in the Wired New story is broken -- Regulations.gov doesn't use static URL's for individual documents.

The Identity Project comments, including as an appendix the text of the relevant law, are at:

http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf

Those comments also expain how the "Automated Targeting System" would include information on domestic flights and travelers, in addition to international travel records.

There's more background on my blog, and the Identity Project blog:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001184.html

http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/12/05/every-travel er-is-a-target/

As was discussed in detail in the comments I wrote for the Identity Project, the summary in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) very seriously misstates what the actual proposed rule would do. I won't repeat all the details here, but the key language in the proposed rule is, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a 'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." Further answers to your questions aboout the specific language of the proposal, and its implications, are in our formal comments filed with the DHS. The Identity Project and I have done our best to call attention to this proposal. It's not _our_ fault if more people didn't pay more attention to it sooner. We welcome everyone's help in spreading the word about this and related proposals to restrict freedom of travel. It's not too late: Contrary to some secondary and tertiary sources reporting this story, the NPRM does not state when the _proposed_ rule would be effective Keep watching the Federal Register for a notice of a final rule with an effective date. As was explained in my original blog post, the Regulations.gov Web site does not permit persistent direct links to individual documents. I explained in my blog post how to search for and retrieve the original notice of proposed rulemaking (published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048, 14 July 2006). I've also provided a local copy of the notice on my Web site, for those who are having trouble finding it on the .gov site.

As was discussed in detail in the comments I wrote for the Identity Project, the summary in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) very seriously misstates what the actual proposed rule would do. I won't repeat all the details here, but the key language in the proposed rule is, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a 'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." Further answers to your questions aboout the specific language of the proposal, and its implications, are in our formal comments filed with the DHS. The Identity Project and I have done our best to call attention to this proposal. It's not _our_ fault if more people didn't pay more attention to it sooner. We welcome everyone's help in spreading the word about this and related proposals to restrict freedom of travel. It's not too late: Contrary to some secondary and tertiary sources reporting this story, the NPRM does not state when the _proposed_ rule would be effective Keep watching the Federal Register for a notice of a final rule with an effective date. As was explained in my original blog post, the Regulations.gov Web site does not permit persistent direct links to individual documents. I explained in my blog post how to search for and retrieve the original notice of proposed rulemaking (published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048, 14 July 2006). I've also provided a local copy of the notice on my Web site, for those who are having trouble finding it on the .gov site.

As was discussed in detail in the comments I wrote for the Identity Project, the summary in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) very seriously misstates what the actual proposed rule would do. I won't repeat all the details here, but the key language in the proposed rule is, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a 'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." Further answers to your questions aboout the specific language of the proposal, and its implications, are in our formal comments filed with the DHS. The Identity Project and I have done our best to call attention to this proposal. It's not _our_ fault if more people didn't pay more attention to it sooner. We welcome everyone's help in spreading the word about this and related proposals to restrict freedom of travel. It's not too late: Contrary to some secondary and tertiary sources reporting this story, the NPRM does not state when the _proposed_ rule would be effective Keep watching the Federal Register for a notice of a final rule with an effective date. As was explained in my original blog post, the Regulations.gov Web site does not permit persistent direct links to individual documents. I explained in my blog post how to search for and retrieve the original notice of proposed rulemaking (published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048, 14 July 2006). I've also provided a local copy of the notice on my Web site, for those who are having trouble finding it on the .gov site.

As was discussed in detail in the comments I wrote for the Identity Project, the summary in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) very seriously misstates what the actual proposed rule would do. I won't repeat all the details here, but the key language in the proposed rule is, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a 'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." Further answers to your questions aboout the specific language of the proposal, and its implications, are in our formal comments filed with the DHS. The Identity Project and I have done our best to call attention to this proposal. It's not _our_ fault if more people didn't pay more attention to it sooner. We welcome everyone's help in spreading the word about this and related proposals to restrict freedom of travel. It's not too late: Contrary to some secondary and tertiary sources reporting this story, the NPRM does not state when the _proposed_ rule would be effective Keep watching the Federal Register for a notice of a final rule with an effective date. As was explained in my original blog post, the Regulations.gov Web site does not permit persistent direct links to individual documents. I explained in my blog post how to search for and retrieve the original notice of proposed rulemaking (published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048, 14 July 2006). I've also provided a local copy of the notice on my Web site, for those who are having trouble finding it on the .gov site.

You pretend to be a Libertarian, but then don't even know who the Friends of Liberty are. You claim you are a skeptic, but don't even look up the subject matter linked-to in the article. You invoke Godwin's law, but then continue to post to the thread.

foldspider, I wouldn't say you are anything more than a tool of Fox news and the Bush White House sent to troll Slashdot for the sake of your (failed) cause. Thanks for bankrupting our country, jackass. Hope you get everything you deserve handed to you on Tuesday.

Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search with Keyword: USCBP-2005-0003 for the proposed rule.

http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf is an in depth commentary on the proposed rule.

I'm afraid I don't take these "Friends of Liberty" folks at face value. Their assertions are backed up by a volume of evidence found in similar conspiracy theories. NONE WHATSOEVER.

Read the PDF listed at the bottom of the press release. The very first paragraph explains the source of their concerns:

The Identity Project submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048 (July 14, 2006), docket number USCBP-2005-0003-0003, and the associated "Regulatory Assessment" published July 18, 2006 on the Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/ and docketed as USCBP-2005-0003-0005.

In the guise of an NPRM alleged to propose a change only in the required timing of transmission of information already required to be provided to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the CBP has actually proposed a fundamental regulatory change with far-reaching (literally and figuratively) legal, policy, and logistical implications: The NPRM would replace a requirement for ex post facto notice to the CBP of information about who is on each vessel (ship or plane) with an unconstitutional system of prior restraint of international travel, entirely unauthorized by statute and inconsistent with the U.S. obligations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Here is the full docket in PDF format (took me a while to find it until I came across a Reddit comment that said to make sure you allow the search engine to search closed-for-comment documents...and when I did, it took the search engine a minute or more to find the document.)

1. "If you don't like it, move away."

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001156.html

The USA Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed that airlines cruise lines, and operators of all other ships and planes -- including charter flights, air taxis, fishing vessels, etc. -- be required to get individual permission ("clearance") from the DHS for each passenger on all flights or ocean voyages to, from, or via the USA. Unless the answer is "Yes" -- if the answer is "no" or "maybe", or if the DHS doesn't answer at all -- the airline wouldn't be allowed to give you a boarding pass, or let you or your luggage on the plane.

The chipped passports were originally to have been issued last October. Undersecretary of State Frank Moss, in a rare display of common sense, came to the 2005 Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy to hear out the critics. Travel writer Ed Hasbrouk (his writeup andblog item on his recent TSA runnin) raised the spectre of the chips serving to trigger explosives. Moss got it, and delayed the rollout until shielding could be added to the design.

photo Moss shows his prototype to John Gilmore, as Hasbrouk and I look on.

The chipped passports were originally to have been issued last October. Undersecretary of State Frank Moss, in a rare display of common sense, came to the 2005 Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy to hear out the critics. Travel writer Ed Hasbrouk (his writeup andblog item on his recent TSA runnin) raised the spectre of the chips serving to trigger explosives. Moss got it, and delayed the rollout until shielding could be added to the design.

photo Moss shows his prototype to John Gilmore, as Hasbrouk and I look on.

Not so meaningless, no.

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001065.html

> You see, there are tons of news about RFID being broken, but when was the last time you saw that about a smart card?

Using your terminology where these things everyone else is calling RFIDs but you want to call contactless smart cards?

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69453-1.htm l?tw=wn_story_page_next1
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dutch_biom etric_passport_crack/
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000434.html
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/dutch-rfid-e-pa ssport-cracked-us-next/

The point is that certainty is missing, that secret law governs what happens, and that there is no recourse. Unlike any other transport service, I can't count on being allowed to fly, even with a contract for that service in place. Calling the airlines private at this point is silly - they are all but nationalized - bailouts whenever needed, security all but outsourced, and plenty of congresscritters to buy them the legislation they want.

And that's before I bitch about the specific requirements and creeping TOA/BB/SS/Whatever you want to call it.

For them wot care, take a look at a different view of how airline regulation, secret law, and the airline cartel's cozy relationship with government is working out.

Truly, we are approaching a situation in which certainty of contract and basic privacy is reserved for those wealthy enough to use blinds, have a share of a plane, the money to create a trust for private finance, etc. And the cost is going up.

If you feel protected, you're deluding yourself.

The point is that certainty is missing, that secret law governs what happens, and that there is no recourse. Unlike any other transport service, I can't count on being allowed to fly, even with a contract for that service in place. Calling the airlines private at this point is silly - they are all but nationalized - bailouts whenever needed, security all but outsourced, and plenty of congresscritters to buy them the legislation they want.

And that's before I bitch about the specific requirements and creeping TOA/BB/SS/Whatever you want to call it.

For them wot care, take a look at a different view of how airline regulation, secret law, and the airline cartel's cozy relationship with government is working out.

Truly, we are approaching a situation in which certainty of contract and basic privacy is reserved for those wealthy enough to use blinds, have a share of a plane, the money to create a trust for private finance, etc. And the cost is going up.

If you feel protected, you're deluding yourself.

According to this almost 2 year old report (http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000038.html), this concern may have been unwarranted.

You seem to miss the point, without a RealID, you can't even drive a car, have a job, have a bank account or anything. The only way for the the national ID to work is to require it as the only acceptable ID. I'd say that goes beyond just a fair bit of hardship.

4: You are *already* required to identify yourself when you board a plane, when you get a passport, and when you do any of the other things that you would use RealID for. The federal government *already* can track and aggregate all of the information that it or any government in the United States collects on you. And, ALL of this information is protected by the same kind of legal protection that your yearly tax forms are protected by--and trust me, the government knows FAR more about you from your taxes than they can get from your driver's license.

Actually, I don't need a passport or identification to board a plane for interstate travel. Show me the law that says otherwise, then contact John Gilmore, because he can't even get the TSA to show him or his attorney the law. I agree that you do need an ID for a passport, but that is because it establishes citizenship. Just like my SS# is only to establish eligibility in the Social Security program and my eligibility to work. Besides, if the Gov't already has all this data, why do they need additional legislation to guarantee that they have it?

5: It's worth noting that, if there's only one place where all of your information is stored by the government, then realistically you will be able to use this to much more effectively defeat identity theft. Prove to one federal judge (or even a state judge...) that you are the real CygnusXII and that other guy in Pittsfield is a fraud, and it's a done deal.

So what's to guarantee that they guy in Pittsfield isn't going to have the same or better documentation. How about someone else steals my RealID via RFID and uses it locally for purchases or for a terrorist act (link talks about the new passports, but is just as relevent showing gov't cluelessness). How can I prove it wasn't me? Often Identity Theft occurs close to home. That's what makes it so hard to battle. The legislation does nothing to ensure that mass duplication of my ID is prevented.

Before you take it to the film shop, let it sit for a day to get it back to room temperature. Also, when you get it developed, you may want to ask them not to cut the negatives (keep it as one long strip). This will make it easier for you to scan the negatives: less feeding of the short strips.

If the film is kept in a long strip for ease of scanning / later printing, probably the best way to transport it is (carefully :-) wound onto a spool in the original case.

There's a lot to be said for a compact film camera... 'photo-snobs' might look down on them but in many ways they are a lot better for travel than an SLR. Although there are times you'll want a longer lens, there will probably be plenty more times you wish you had something smaller - lots of days you really won't want to lug a full setup with you, and mightn't feel totally happy about leaving it in accommodation. There are good compacts around (maybe investigate some of the Ricoh range, the GR look like a potential candidate for a nice travel camera if you like wide-angle lenses, some have optional manual focus too, rather unusual for a compact).

Having tried various types of camera I'd much prefer film over digital for travel - no LCD presenting a large, highly-breakable fragile area - no *highly* visible backlight, which draws a lot more attention to you - vastly reduced battery worries (but if you do go for a digital, something that can be run or at very least recharged from AA cells is a great idea) - etc....

I do also get the impression that digital cameras encourage people to spend more time taking pictures hoping they'll get something 'just right'. Shoot, review, shoot, review, but really it doesn't matter, it's not important (-: You definitely don't want to miss out on what's going on around you just for the sake of photographs...

A few general tips, obviously this will not be the same for all travellers, but generally ... you *don't* need a big bag ... 35-45 litre or so is probably a good compromise (and usually still able to fit under benches, tables in cafes, etc, which you'll probably find useful), maybe you'll want a little more if you're travelling around somewhere really cold (rather than going there and staying put for a while - in which case buy warm things there!). If you don't need something on further legs of the trip - leave it there or trade it!

I really don't think it would be good to be one of the rather-too-many people struggling with a full 60-70 litre pack. In a busy bus-station. In rush hour. Somewhere ReallyFsckingHot. Etc. Cut down on bulk and weight. If in doubt, leave it at home, if it's important you'll be able to buy it on the way anyway (and it'll probably be more suitable for where you're staying, too - especially e.g. clothing). Cut down on hassly/fiddly things. Most important, have fun, oh and ermmm, if you're from the US, please at least *try* not to be too loud! (-:

Take a look at Edward Hasbrouck's tips for travellers page too...

I just recently finished a year's worth of travel. It was budget travelling, 3/4 of which was in the third world, all of which ended up costing about $22,000. Highly recommended.

A great book to get you started is: The Practical Nomad. Read through that, or similar literature, and you'll be so stoked to travel that nothing will hold you back.

Don't worry about "the world climate." The media hypes everything, just like shark attacks. Keep your wits about you and you'll be fine.

Don't worry about geeking out. Take a PDA with a backup cartridge; there are cyber cafes all over the world you can use for internet and mail access.

Fly high little bunny!

Matt

P.S. check out my website if you want to read through some of my travel stories.