Travel ID events at MIT, 5 December 2005

I won't be able to attend (I'll just be getting back from the ICANN meeting in Vancouver, Canada, where I hope to raise the issue of .travel ), but there will be two potentially very interesting gatherings, probably attended by some of the same people, at MIT on Monday, 5 December 2005:

• The in-person MIT Public Forum on the REAL ID Act of 2005 from 09:00-15:00 at the Media Lab (Bldg. E15, Bartos Theater) will include key USA government staff on RFID personal identity credential initiatives in the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office of the President, among others.

• That same evening from 18:30-20:30, the RFID Special Interest Group (SIG) of the MIT Enterprise Forum meeting at the MIT Tang Center (Bldg. E51-376) will hear from representatives of four key corporations involved in RFID passport production and deployment. (The next meeting of the RFID SIG on 9 January 2006 would also be worth attending: it will be devoted to the topic of RFID usage in mass transit tickets, passes, and passenger tracking.)

EU Court advisory opinion against USA access to airline reservation data

In his advisory opinion on a lawsuit initiated in June 2004 by the European Parliament, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has recommended that the Court annull both the agreement by the Council of the European Union to permit access by certain USA government agencies to airline reservation data from the EU, and the finding by the European Commission that airline reservation data transferred to the USA government under the agreement would be "adequately" protected.

Opinion of the Advocate General in cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 (22 November 2005):

• Press release in PDF format (English)
• Opinion in HTML format (French)
• Opinion in MS-Word format (French, local copy)

My French is weak (a translation of the Opinion into English may eventually be posted here , but hasn't yet been prepared), and my knowledge of EU legal procedure nonexistent. But my understanding from European press reports is that the Advocate General investigates and researches the case on behalf of the Court, and that his or her recommendations are usually but not always followed.

The recommended actions (nullification of the agreement and the adequacy finding) are no surprise, but the Advocate General's reasoning isn't what I had expected.

As I (imperfectly) understand it, the Advocate General's Opinion rejects the arguments against the adequacy finding and agreement based on their incompatibility with the EU Data Protection Directive, on the thoery that transfers of personal data for law enforcement purposes are excluded from that Directive. And the Advocate General rejects Parliament's procedural and division-of-powers objections to the manner in which the adequacy finding and agreement were approved over Parliament's objections.

Instead, the Advocate General's Opinion is based on the argument that international transfers of personal data for law enforcement purposes are outside any authority of the EU -- and thus, implicitly, that they could be authorized, if at all, only by national action by individual EU mmeber governments, according to their various national procedures.

Should this reasoning be adoipted by the EU Court of Justice in its final decision, the likely consequence would be an immediate attempt by the USA to conclude similar agreements with individual EU members. The first targets, I suspect, would probably be the UK and/or the Netherlands, and it's possible that negotiations for such reservation data access treaties could be bundled into, and leveraged by other concessions in, the ongoing negotaitions between the USA and EU governments on bilateral and multilateral aviation treaties.

None of this has any effect on the (il)legality of transfers of reservation data from airline offices, travel agents, and tour operators in the EU to commerical entities in the USA, including airlines and computerized reservations systems . As I've noted repeatedly, those routine ongoing transfers of personal data, in the absence of any legal restrictions on how those commerical entities can use (sell, rent, re-transfer, etc.) the data, are undoubtedly in violation of the EU Data Protection Directive and the privacy clause of the EU Code of Conduct for CRS's, and provide grounds for complaints by travellers from the EU.

[Addendum, 14 February 2006: Statewatch.org has posted the official translation into English of the Advocate General's opinion. There's still no word on a date for the decision of the Court itself.]

The Amazing Race 8 (Family Edition), Episode 8

Page, AZ (USA) - Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park, UT (USA) - Moab, UT (USA - Green River State Park, UT (USA) - Heber City, UT (USA) - Park City, UT (USA) - Salt Lake City, UT (USA)

I don't have much to say about this week's episode of The Amazing Race 8 . The family teams spent most of this episode driving across Utah (some liked what they saw out the windows of their vehicles, some didn't), and their conversations with local people were largely limited to gas stations and roadside rest stops.

We may be tempted to think of a private motor vehicle, perhaps especially a large "house trailer" like the ones the teams were towing behind their SUV's, as giving us the freedom to get "off the beaten track" and immerse ourselves in the country we are visiting. Instead, it can imprison us in the self-contained world of the highway -- especially if it is as big and hard to maneuver on secondary roads as the racers' trailers -- and the self-contained character of a motor home can almost eliminate any need or opportunity to engage with local people, or learn about local ways of life, in dealing with the daily necessities of food and shelter.

Not nearly so educational a trip, for children or adults, as travel by public mass transportation (poor though that is in the inter-mountain west of the USA) would have been.

Last week "The Amazing Race" was pre-empted on 15 November 2005 by the Country Music Awards. Instead, I got my weekly dose of commentary on the race at the annual PhoCusWright conference in Orlando, Florida, where Michelle Peluso -- CEO of race sponsor Travelocity.com and Executive V.P. of its corporate parent, Sabre Holdings Corp. -- was telling the assembled travel and Internet executives:

We [Travelocity.com] think things like "The Amazing Race", where we can get deep product integration and promote our service guarantee, are really great places to promote our brand.

Leaving aside what viewers think of intrusive, unrealistic, and ill-disclosed "deep product integration" in television "reality" programs, I was pleasantly surprised but also skeptical at Peluso's newfound profession of belief in "customer championship".

When I first interviewed Peluso five years ago at a similar conference, she was CEO of the then-new Internet tour packager Site59.com , later acquired by Travelocity.com. Since Site59.com was an unknown start-up company and one of the first Internet companies to sell travel packages at an all-inclusive price, my first questions to Peluso concerned what, if any, responsibility her company took for ensuring that customers would receive everything that was advertised as included in their package.

Peluso scoffed at the need for any sort of guarantee, and vehemently dismissed the idea that customers should read the fine print on her Web site or pay any attention to what it said. Basically, her message was, "Trust us".

I still don't know whether Peluso hadn't read her own company's contract terms (possible but odd, given her background with a highly-paid business consultancy), had read them and really didn't think they mattered, or assumed that consumers wouldn't read or understand them. But no one who read and understood the original Site59.com terms would have bought anything from them: they allowed Site59.com to take your money while explicitly disclaiming their responsibility to provide or ensure the provision of any travel services.

So when Peluso started promoting her current company's "guarantee", I took another look at whether it's really a meaningful one. What happens if you've paid Travelocity.com or one of the other Sabre subsidiaries for travel services, but the airline or hotel claims that they've never heard of you, or that you have a reservations but it hasn't been paid for?

Site59.com's terms of service have improved only slightly since the company's acquisition by Travelocity.com and Sabre:

No Guarantee, Endorsement or Liability.... We ... cannot guarantee the accuracy of listings or product descriptions.... YOUR SOLE REMEDY FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH ... PACKAGES OR OTHER PRODUCTS OR SERVICES IS TO STOP USING THE SAME. THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE MAXIMUM LIABILITY TO SITE59 FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES AND CAUSES OF ACTION ... SHALL BE THE LESSER OF (A) THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR A PACKAGE, OR (B) US$100.00.

A US$100 cap on damages, even for complete non-delivery of packages that typically cost many times that, doesn't look to me like "customer championship" or much of a guarantee.

As for Travelocity.com, its Web site claims prominently that its guarantee "isn't a marketing ploy to win your business".

But if isn't (just) a marketing ploy, what does it really mean?

Legally, nothing. Here's Travelocity.com's actual guarantee (or lack thereof):

6. EXCLUSION OF WARRANTY. TRAVELOCITY.COM AND ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS AND DISTRIBUTORS MAKE NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND REGARDING THIS SITE AND/OR ANY MATERIALS PROVIDED ON THIS SITE, ALL OF WHICH ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. TRAVELOCITY.COM AND ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS AND DISTRIBUTORS DO NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENCY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE CONTENT OR DATA FOUND ON THIS SITE AND SUCH PARTIES EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND THOSE ARISING BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE IN LAW OR FROM A COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE....

7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.... IN NO EVENT SHALL TRAVELOCITY.COM OR ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS OR DISTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS, CLAIM, DAMAGE, OR ANY SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS), WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE, WHICH ARISES OUT OF OR IS IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ... THE PERFORMANCE OR NON PERFORMANCE BY TRAVELOCITY.COM OR ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS OR DISTRIBUTORS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NON PERFORMANCE RESULTING FROM BANKRUPTCY, REORGANIZATION, INSOLVENCY, DISSOLUTION OR LIQUIDATION EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGES TO SUCH PARTIES OR ANY OTHER PARTY.

If, notwithstanding the foregoing, Travelocity.com or any third party provider or distributor should be found liable for any loss or damage which arises out of or is in any way connected with any of the above described functions or uses of this site or its content, the liability of Travelocity.com and the third party providers and distributors shall in no event exceed ... US$100.00....

20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This User Agreement, together with any terms and conditions incorporated herein or referred to herein constitute the entire agreement between us relating to the subject matter hereof.

The bottom line, if you read this fine print on Travelocity.com's own Web site, is that its so-called guarantee is not part of its contract and is legally meaningless. Travelocity.com claims the legal right to take your money for the full price of any travel services (even for thousands of dollars), deliver nothing, and pay you no more than US$100 if you sue.

They admit that their disclaimers might not stand up in court, and I suspect they would be even less likely to stand up to a credit card chargeback. But the point is the deceptiveness of claiming in marketing propaganda that their "guarantee" is a "promise", while excluding it from any legal enforceability.

The same goes for Travelocity.com's privacy policy . That privacy "policy" has lots of problems, and Travelocity.com doesn't comply with it, but it scarcely matters what it says (except to mislead consumers and give them a false sense of privacy), since it isn't part of Travelocity'com's terms of service.

If Peluso and her company really believe in customer championship, I challenge them to incorporate both their "guarantee" and their privacy policy fully and explicitly, by reference, in their legally enforceable terms of service, and remove their US$100 liability limitation. If they do and tell me about it, I promise to let you know. But I won't hold my breath.

I pick on Peluso and her company not because their actual terms of service are worse than their competitors', but because they invited the scrutiny with their (unfounded, it turns out) boasts.

Unfortunately, Travelocity.com's so-called guarantee is so effective as a marketing ploy precisely because, as Peluso said in one of the truthful parts of her talk at PhoCusWright, "Consumers increasingly want someone to take more responsibility for every aspect of their trip." There's still an unfilled niche for travel agents who really acts as buyers' agents and advocates for their interests against those of suppliers of travel services.

Later in the conference, Peluso's most important competitor, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi of Expedia.com, was asked in a different way about somewhat the same issue. His answer was equally consumer-hostile, but more honest:

Questioner: In the future, will online travel agencies look more like tour operators, and search engines look more like travel agencies?

Khosrowshahi: Yes ... but we [Expedia.com] don't want the risk model of a tour operator -- that's something we want to avoid.

Some in the audience thought Khosrowshahi was talking about the risk of "owning inventory" (committing to fill airline seats, hotel rooms, etc. before getting paid for them), but I think he's smart enough to know that's not how the industry works. I think he was talking about the liability to the consumer for delivery of every part of the package that a tour operator takes on -- and for which they are paid in the markup they add, in the retail package price, to what they pay at wholesale for the components of the package.

The PhoCusWright Executive Conference ended, as usual, with a panel discussion of "Whaddaya think?" I still think, "Caveat emptor".

The Amazing Race 8 (Family Edition), Episode 7

Quepos (Costa Rica) - Grecia (Costa Rica) - Phoenix, AZ (USA) - Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, AZ (USA) - Mesa, AZ (USA) - Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (USA) - Page, AZ (USA)

Perhaps it would be too much to expect the Family Edition of The Amazing Race reality television show to model appropriate behavior for younger travellers. But one could still wish for better than some of what we saw in tonight's episode in Costa Rica, when one of the Bransen sisters yells out, "There's a funeral going on. Make sure we're respectful", after which they all run up to the front entrance of the church in their bikinis and sleeveless t-shirts.

Even that gaffe is minor compared to last week's episode, when the racers were sent into the rain forest to spot the "Mayan relics" and haul them out as quickly as possible.

Like real-life looters, their haste precluded proper documentation or careful handling of what they found. And like many real-life travellers who try to buy ancient artifacts, they ended up with fakes. Erin Van Rheenen, author of last week's guest column and of the guidebook Living Abroad in Costa Rica , points out that despite some Mayan influences, the territory of present-day Costa Rica was never part of the Maya civilization. The real Mayan relics have been, and some still are, found in other countries to the north.

What sort of example does this set? Here's what I say in The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World about this kind of "souvenir hunting":

Art, Artifacts, and Antiquities

One reason people travel is to see monuments and artifacts of the history and culture of the places they visit. Too often, they find that the best examples of local artistic, cultural, and even architectural traditions were long ago looted by imperialist collectors and archaeologists. Even the finest murals from inner rooms of rock-cut tombs and temples were sawed out in sections, hauled away, and re-assembled as the prized exhibits of museums in London, Paris, New York, Boston, and Chicago, leaving gaping holes in the walls of the sanctuaries for those who visit these sites today.

To stem the ongoing theft of what they have left of their cultural heritage, and to preserve the attractions of their country for citizens and future visitors alike, most formerly colonized countries have special restrictions on the export of artworks, antiquities, and archaeological artifacts. Typically, these things are defined as national treasures, and their export is categorically prohibited. Exactly what constitutes an antique or an artifact isn't always clearly defined, but common sense is usually a sufficient guide.

Here's a rule of thumb: If you can afford it without having to think about the price, it's probably a legal fake. Real antiques cost real money. Good modern reproductions of museum pieces, or modern works in classical styles, can be harder to get out of the country than obviously fake "antiques" or works in modern styles or media. This is unfortunate, because it reduces the export market that might support continued work in traditional artistic styles. High-quality modern art in a classical medium or style is really one of the best souvenirs, if you can afford it. But bringing it out of the country is likely to require at least a purchase receipt, the more official looking the better. In some countries, you'll need certification from a government agency or appointed specialist (art historian or curator) that the work is not an antique or national treasure.

In creating a demand for these antiques, buyers and collectors are also to blame for creating a financial opportunity for impoverished local people who can earn the equivalent of a year's wages in a day by working in the jungle digging up burial mounds instead of plowing fields. The damage will only stop when those who can afford to buy these treasures choose not to. Don't buy antiques or archaeological artifacts. Don't buy anything else from people who sell these things, and tell them why. Encourage other travelers to boycott them. If someone shows you a piece of pre-Columbian pottery, don't say, "What a find!" Say, "Doesn't that belong in a museum, where everyone could see it?" If each visitor takes away a tangible piece of the past, nothing of the past will be left for the future.

Buying or smuggling forbidden antiquities or artifacts is considered not merely theft but theft from the collective cultural heritage of a people. You aren't just stealing: you are stealing from a nation; in many countries all antiquities, in whomever's possession, are officially deemed the property of the state. Even if the objects you buy or take have no ritual or religious value (which they often do), you aren't just taking souvenirs: you are stealing icons of the identity of a people. You are stealing the national soul and will be treated accordingly. You can expect little sympathy from your own country's government if you are caught and fined or imprisoned for trafficking antiquities or archeological artifacts.

This week the race actually did better at teaching an appreciation for contemporary artistic traditions: One of the racers' final tasks before leaving Costa Rica was painting cartwheels in brightly colored geometric, floral, and bird designs.

The racers' task was familiar to me from my own family. My great-uncle Pen (N. P. Davis) was the U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica from 1947 to 1949. After his return, my artist grandmother (Uncle Pen's younger sister) made a family project of painting the cartwheel-sized round wooden table in the family summer house at Silver Bay in a design inspired by Costa Rican cartwheels. That table remains in use today, the original paint job carefully preserved, and asking about the design of the table was the first context in which, as a child, I heard of a place called Costa Rica.

It wasn't made clear in the TV broadcast, but cartwheel painting is perhaps the best-known Costa Rican folk art. It's a craft that has stood out in visitors' impressions of the country for a century, and something travellers can take home, in memory and artistic inspiration, without taking away anything from their hosts. Let's hope it's that, and not the looting, that the younger racers remember and, perhaps, pass on to their children.

Independence Air is bankrupt

Today Independence Air filed for protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the USA Federal Bankruptcy Act.

I've updated my FAQ about Airline Bankruptcies accordingly.

Independence Air is a bit different from some of the other airlines in the USA that are already in bankruptcy, in that Independence Air (since reorganizing and changing its name form "Atlantic Coast Airlines", which had been a regional airline operating mainly as "United Express" to feed passengers to the United Airlines hub at Dulles Airport near Washington) never had a business plan with any chance of success or profitability. The idea was to operate the most expensive type of aircraft (small jets) on short routes (the most expensive per available seat mile or kilometer) for lower fares. If that sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy -- well, it was. I expected them to go bankrupt.

The Independence Air announcement begins with the bizarrely cheerful statement:

We've joined United, US Airways, Delta, Northwest and ATA who have recently been or are still operating under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. After carefully reviewing all our options, we decided that this course of action represents the best long-term solution for Independence Air, our customers, our employees, our creditors and the communities we serve.

Some of the statements to ticket holders and potential future ticket buyers by Independence Air -- the most recent of these airlines to file for bankruptcy, and who I suspect had read my FAQ -- were framed in more accurate terms than some other bankrupt airlines have used: "Independence Air is not planning to... " rather than "Independence Air will not..."

But elsewhere on its Web site, Independence Air says :

Our flights will continue to fly as scheduled, tickets and reservations will be honored, iCLUB [frequent flyer program] members will still earn points and redeem them, and all refunds and exchanges will be made as always.

There's no mention of, "...the bankruptcy court permitting," although there should be.

The Independence Air bankruptcy may prompt a last-minute attempt to extend the Federal law" that gives some (limited and largely illusory) protection to holders of tickets on bankrupt airlines. That law is scheduled to expire 18 November 2005, and I hope it does: It serves (as was intended by its authors, the airlines) much more to give ticket buyers a false sense of security than to give them any meaningful protection in the event an airline goes out of business entirely.

[Addendum, 8 November 2005: Dealing with the same iussue in the UK, "The Government has decided not to accept the Civil Aviation Authority's recommendation for a £1 levy on all air passengers departing the UK. The levy was intended to finance the homeward journeys of passengers whose airline went bankrupt while they were abroad, and refunds of the money they had lost." The decision comes despite the CAA's finding at the conclusion of an extensive research and deliberative process that, "over half of unprotected passengers wrongly believe they are protected; ... Consumers cannot rely on other forms of protection. 90% of travel insurance policies do not cover air carrier insolvency.... Also, consumers are increasingly paying by debit cards to avoid air carriers' credit card surcharges -- but this means they lose the refund protection which credit card purchases can provide."]

"Pacifists for War" and the draft?

The cover story of today's SF Weekly is on Pacifists for War ("within a feuding peace movement, counter-recruiters are conspiring to bring back the draft"). In response, I've sent the letter below. You can send your letters to feedback@sfweekly.com .

Against the Draft

Despite pro-draft quotes from people as far removed from pacifism and counter-recruitment as a "former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon", the only purported examples of "counter-recruiters ... conspiring to bring back the draft" in Cristi Hegranes' 4000-word cover story on Pacifists for War are one person "on the outskirts of the crowd" at a counter-recruitment rally in San Francisco, and a single post more than a year ago by a Wisconsin blogger.

It's too bad Hegranes didn't interview a single anti-draft activist, or look at any of the anti-draft Web sites like Resisters.info and MedicalDraft.info .

The fundamental mistake in your article -- and the source of the erroneous conclusion that opposition to military recruiting implies support for a draft as the "only alternative" -- is the assumption that war is inevitable. But pacifist anti-war strategy is based on recognition of our power to stop war, not through appeals to politicians but by direct action such as refusing to fight.

Countering recruiters' lies, supporting those in the military who want out, resisting reinstatement of the draft, and opposing the outsourcing of war to mercenaries are all complementary parts of that same strategy to deprive the military of cannon fodder.

There are differences of opinion among pacifists and other anti-militarists as to whether Selective Service or the current poverty draft is the "lesser evil". But there's agreement among all pacifists, and almost all anti-war activists, that if war is wrong, it's wrong to send anyone to fight it. And there's a common expectation -- bolstered by 25 years of the government's failure even to get young men to register for the draft, much less report for induction -- that a draft would be at least as much a failure for the warmongers as recruiting is becoming.

The handful of show trials of draft resistance organizers like myself in the 1980's served only to call attention to the resistance, and to the safety in our numbers. Enforcement of draft registration was abandoned, and no one has been prosecuted in almost 20 years. Whether or not the politicians or the Pentagon will want a draft if recruiting declines further, it's not their choice, and resistance makes it not an option.

The real alternative to military enlistment, as advocated by both pacifists and other counter-recruiters, isn't a draft. It's an end to war.

Edward Hasbrouck
San Francisco
(imprisoned for organizing resistance to draft registration, 1983-1984)

"Medical Reserve Corps" collecting names ... for a medical draft?

I've been meaning for some time to post a pointer to the Medical Reserve Corps for those concerned about possible military conscription of health care workers .

According to the MedicalReserveCorps.gov Web site:

In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush
announced the USA Freedom Corps, an initiative designed to promote and organize volunteerism and service in the United States. USA Freedom Corps is comprised of several organizations, including Citizen Corps.... The Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), which organizes and prepares medical professionals for emergencies ... is a community-based and specialized component of Citizen Corps.

Despite this rhetoric of "volunteerism", the Medical Reserve Corps has been seeking to obtain for the USA Federal government lists of (non-volunteer) members of medical and related professional associations.

I was alerted to this by a medical first responder who works as a ski patroller, and who learned of a National Ski Patrol (NSP) meeting earlier this year in which "One of the items of business apparently covered a request by the U.S. military's manpower and mobilization command for a membership database from the National Ski Patrol."

As several members of the organization wrote:

We are extremely displeased that NSP would consider doing so.... We do not want our patrol roster or the names or other information about our patrollers released to any entity not directly related to our mission as ski patrollers. Adding to our concern is our knowledge that U.S. military planners view a draft of medical specialists as necessary to sustain widened or prolonged combat in our current wars and military occupations overseas.

It's not clear to me that Medical Reserve Corps is assembling a database of medical professionals and their skills for the purpose of facilitating a medical draft (rather that merely for the purpose of soliciting them to volunteer) in case of "national emergency" (the time-honored excuse for conscription).

But it's possible that this is simply a "front" through which lists of medical personnel could be acquired by other Federal agencies, which could be made available to the Selective Slavery System in the event of a health care workers draft , so as to preempt resistance by professional organizations to providing their membership and licensing lists directly to the SS.

And even if the Medical Reserve Corps has other, legitimate uses for its database, the lack of meaningful restrictions on inter-agency sharing of data, once the Feds get hold of it, could make the temptation to use its database irresistible in the event of a medical draft.

Obviously this highlights the importance of getting professional organizations of health care workers to take positions sooner, rather than later, opposing turning over personal data to any Federal agency that could be used for a draft.

The Amazing Race 8 (Family Edition), Episode 6

Panama City (Panama) - San José (Costa Rica) - Parque Nacional Volcan Poás (Costa Rica) - Doka Coffee Estate (Costa Rica) - Jacó (Costa Rica) - Quepos (Costa Rica)

"You Can't Get There From Here"

(Special guest column by By Erin Van Rheenen, author of Living Abroad in Costa Rica and LivingAbroadInCostaRica.com )

"Tica!" shout the contestants as they rush around the Panama City bus station. "Tica-Tica-Tica!" They're searching for the counter of Tica Bus, Costa Rica's best-known bus line. What they probably don't realize is that they're also calling out frantically for a woman -- a Costa Rican woman, to be exact. "Tico" is the Costa Ricans' nickname for themselves; "Tica" is the feminine of that word.

When you're trying to navigate in unfamiliar territory, it's good to ask (not shout) for help. But be careful what you're asking.

And be sure your pronunciation doesn't mangle the word beyond recognition. Once in Costa Rica, contestants have to find their way from the capital city of San José to the Pacific coast town of Jacó. I was happy to see that many of the teams at least attempted to speak Spanish, but most of them seemed not to know that a "J" in Spanish was pronounced the way an "H" is pronounced in English. If locals knew what contestants were talking about when they called out for "Yeah-ko", it's only because the San José - Jacó route is one of the most heavily touristed in the country, and most tourists in Costa Rica don't speak a word of Spanish.

"English is widely spoken" is a common and patently false claim of many a travel guide to Costa Rica. And just because someone speaks English doesn't mean she or he can help you. Later in the episode contestants stumble across an older English-speaking man who looks like he's bellying up to the bar at 9 o'clock in the morning. This is one variety of the species American Ex-Paticus , the habits of which should make you doubt its ability to know anything but the way to the bar's toilet.

And while getting around a foreign country is always a challenge, it's especially difficult in Costa Rica, where streets are often unnamed and buildings unnumbered, even in big cities.

I remember my first week in Costa Rica. I asked the desk clerk at the hotel (in Spanish) how to get to a restaurant a guidebook claimed was nearby. The clerk gave me my first taste of Costa Rican addresses, which translates as: "From the radiologist's office, go 200 meters north, 100 meters east, and 75 meters south. Pass the tree with purple flowers. The restaurant was pink when the Señora was still alive but now it's white. You can't miss it."

"So what's the name of the street?" I asked the clerk.

"No name," he said, and began to recite again, "From the radiologist's office..."

I couldn't take this in. It just wasn't in my frame of reference to have a shifting frame of reference -- to count off meters from a doctor's office or a flowering tree. I wasn't yet ready to wrap my mind around a completely different way of calculating location. Much to the clerk's dismay, I kept asking him for more information, for a way of thinking that would make sense to me. I couldn't take in what he was telling me, no matter how exact his instructions.

We do that in many different ways when we travel: cling to our old paradigms because we don't yet have new ones. It would take me a while to realize that 100 meters was a block, and that the style of addresses in Costa Rica was often quite exact -- as exact and often more helpful than "345 Maiden Lane" would be. But for a while I just couldn't take in what people were telling me: Why couldn't they just tell me what I needed to know, in a form I could understand?

Besides a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, and a willingness to receive information in forms you're not accustomed to, asking for navigational help in Costa Rica means taking your time. Locals are more than willing to help, but are understandably put off if you scream out the car window the mispronounced name of a town and then speed off when you're pointed in a particular direction. Like most things in Costa Rica (and in many places around the world), it's all about good manners. Saying please and thank you. Taking your time.

In my book, Living Abroad in Costa Rica , I tell my readers:

Human interaction is far and away the most important thing here, and people take time to say hello to neighbors or to make small talk with clerks and taxi drivers. This is true even in the relatively fast-paced capital city but is much more pronounced in small towns. I heard the story of some gringos in a rented 4 × 4 stopping on a dirt road to ask an old man for directions. "I'll be happy to tell you the best way there," replied the man. "But first: it's a pleasure to meet you."

Amazing Race contestants don't have a moment to spare for the niceties of human interaction. Which is a shame. If they did, not only would they get better directions; they might even slow down enough to actually enjoy the ride.

[Copyright © 2005 Erin Van Rheenen. Erin Van Rheenen was the editor of the 2nd edition of The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World and is the author of Living Abroad in Costa Rica . If you're thinking of moving to Costa Rica, see her Web site for more on relocation seminars and other services and information.]