‘Vote Travel’ Bus Coming To A City Near You

by Libby Zay on

The United States Travel Association (U.S. Travel) has rolled out a new plan to spread the word on the importance of tourism in America: A big blue bus that is now making its way across the country on a 20,000-mile tour. The bus is a roving advertisement for U.S. Travel, an organization that is on a mission to highlight the economic benefits of travel. The association makes some pretty good points too, citing that travel contributes $1.9 trillion to the US economy and supports more than 14.4 million jobs here on our home turf. Looks like they’re also having some fun while playing off the current political campaign climate.

The bus tour includes major rallies in select cities (for a full list, see the U.S. Travel website), the first of which was held in Las Vegas on April 12. According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, tourism is the number one economic driver in southern Nevada, generating $40 billion for the local economy and supporting 37,000 jobs. Upcoming cities include Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Palm Springs, Los Angeles and Phoenix before the bus makes its way through the south toward Florida followed by a jaunt up the East Coast.

If you spot the bus, stop by to learn how to urge your elected representatives and candidates to sign a pledge that supports policies that “safely and effectively reduce barriers to travel to and within the United States,” according to a press release by the U.S. Travel. The bus also has some swag to give out, such as t-shirts and squishy, stress-relieving buses. Of course, you don’t have to search for the bus in order to help, just visit the Vote Travel website where you can fill out a simple form.

Images (top to bottom) The “Vote Travel” bus inside the Tuscahn Canyon in Ivin, Utah [Photo courtesy the United States Travel Association]; Promotional travel postcards ; [Photo courtesy the United States Travel Association]; and officials from the US Travel Association and employees at the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce to kick off the “Vote Travel” national wide bus tour on April 12, 2012 [Photo by Darrin Bush]

Marriott Responds To Internet Privacy Issue

by McLean Robbins on

Last week we reported that a Marriott Courtyard in New York might be engaging in some less than above-board Internet marketing practices. At the time, Marriott assured Gadling that they were looking into the issue, stating, “This is not a Marriott-endorsed protocol and we are working to investigate the issue.”

It looks like they’ve done some more digging, as an emailed statement to the New York Times indicated that, “unbeknownst to the hotel, the Internet service provider (ISP) was utilizing functionality that allowed advertising to be pushed to the end user. The ISP has assured the hotel that this functionality has now been disabled.”

We spoke also with Justin Watt, the guest who noticed the issue, who says that he received the same email press statement shared with the public.

“I feel like their response could have been more transparent and information dense,” he wrote in an email to Gadling today, and indicates that he updated his original blog post to state the following:

What bugs me about their response is that the device required to do this type of on-the-fly JavaScript injection of HTML is both rare and expensive. It requires specialized hardware (like the RG Nets’ RXG-A8) starting at a cost of $10,000. In other words, this hardware was procured precisely for the purpose of perpetrating this kind of attack… the optimal solution to this snafu wasn’t simply that “we’ve disabled the functionality”-it has to be “we’ve removed/replaced the offensive hardware”. Nothing less is sufficient. Otherwise, what’s to stop someone from accidentally (or otherwise) re-enabling it later?

Marriott has assured users that “at no time was data security ever at risk,” but the question is, should they be more transparent in sharing their fixes to the issue?

Times Square’s Courtyard Marriott Accused of Bugging Your Internet

by McLean Robbins on

Justin Watt, a web developer, is accusing the Courtyard Marriott in New York’s Times Square of bugging his Internet, injecting ads into each page he viewed while logged into the hotel’s Wi-Fi network.

After some digging (and complex code you can read more about on his website), Watt found that Marriott’s Internet provider injected CSS and JavaScript code into each page to run a “Revenue eXtraction Gateway” for the purpose of putting targeted ads on each page.

Chris Rill, a software engineer and entrepreneur familiar with web application development told Gadling:

“This is much different from a typical ad pixel because the Internet provider (the hotel in this case) is injecting the ad, not the content provider (website).

This is a key issue in the net neutrality debate. The “network” is looking for a way to increase revenue and this is an example of how the network can modify the content to monetize the user.”

In modifying the code, YouTube was also disabled in the browser – another fact that didn’t make Mr. Watt particularly happy.

A Boston-based digital media expert, familiar with the industry but not with this particular case said,

“I think it’s safe to say that this is not a Marriott-wide, or even Courtyard-wide effort. This is a single hotel (or particular HSA provider) doing their own thing.”

“It’s unclear to me if something that crosses the line is actually happening,” He adds. “From where I sit, [Watt] is using a free service, and in this day and age when we are using a service for free we should expect to have advertisements shown to us. Heck, even when services are not free, we should expect to have ads shown to us.”

Watt is angry – as are most of the commenters on his blog post and other places it has been shared. Many feel as if they are being spied on by the hotel.

While users are understandably outraged by what they see as spying, displaying contextual ads following a user’s visit is fairly common practice. At question here, as Mr. Rill points out, is whether the network or the hotel is actually profiting off of the user by placing targeted ads.

Still, if you wish to guard your privacy, Watt suggests that you BYO connectivity or connect through a VPN so that a public network can’t detect your traffic.

UPDATE: 5:30 PM, April 6, 2012:
A Marriott spokesperson says “This is not a Marriott-endorsed protocol and we are working to investigate the issue.”

[Flickr via StreetFlyJZ]

Nebraska Senator Proposes Air Passenger Fairness Act of 2012

by McLean Robbins on

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) today introduced the “Air Passenger Fairness Act of 2012,” an act he proposes will “promote fairness for all air travel passengers by barring airlines and airport operators from using express security lines that allow for certain groups of air passengers to cut to the front of the TSA security screening line at the airport.”

In short, The Nelson bill would prohibit elite flier lines that expedite some passengers’ TSA screenings. Nelson feels that this practice is unethical because all passengers pay the same TSA screening cost, regardless of the overall cost of their ticket.

“This bill is about fairness. Regardless of whether you have a first-class ticket or have reached a certain frequent flier status, the purpose of the airport security screening line is to ensure traveler safety. Allowing a select few to cut in front of those who are waiting patiently, just in order to provide a perk, has nothing to do with safety,” said Senator Nelson.

Who Is Not Covered
The act would not affect the current Transportation Security Administration-administered program that travelers can use to apply for pre-screening clearance that may expedite their security screenings at designated locations in select airports. It also would not stop an airline or airport operator from setting up express lines for disabled passengers.

An Act Not Based In Opinion
While we fully support the idea that everyone needs a full security screen and deserves to be treated, as the bill’s title states, with “fairness,” we can’t help but think this is a waste of congressional effort.While the security fee may be the same – covering the cost of effective screening for all – many frequent travelers did pay higher ticket rates, for example for business, first or select seating. Of those passengers, many would argue that priority line access (of all types) is a de facto benefit.

Travelers expedited through a security line are generally frequent travelers experienced in security proceedings and move through the line at an exponentially faster pace than those who travel on a less frequent basis. Since travelers are taken on a “one here, one there” basis, if the two lines are equally as long, travelers will wait for the same amount of time. This is often the case on heavy business travel mornings where many travelers are “elite”.

Discrimination or a Pet Peeve?
While one would not wish to stereotype, those who fly less frequently take longer to remove their shoes, empty their pockets and unpack their laptop than frequent or elite-level travelers (who earned the “elite” status through frequent flying or by paying for the perk). By offering two lines, frequent (and faster) travelers can speed the process for all.

What caused Nelson to draft this bill? Has Nelson, in fact, stood in a security line and noted these expedited travelers getting preferential screening? Less chance of a random bag check? Certainly no studies have been conducted to suggest this is the case.

Offering a “priority” line for frequent travelers is not case of segregation or discrimination, as Nelson is trying to allege, but merely a case of expediting an already cumbersome process.

With this new proposed act, Senator Nelson has effectively attempted to create controversy in a process that effectively had no controversy at all.

Please, Senator, focus your efforts somewhere where they’re needed – there are certainly areas in the airline industry where your concern would be enormously helpful.

[Flickr via steuben]

Instead Of Passport Stamps, Let’s Collect ICTS Stickers

by Grant Martin on

There’s this nagging question that keeps coming up every time I read an interview with a travel writer or person who spends a great deal of time on the road, and frankly it’s starting to bother me: “How many countries have you been to?”

The problem with that question is, visiting a country is different for every person. Some people are there for business; some are there for pleasure. Some step out of the airport for a smoke while others stay for months or years. It’s not a balanced question, and using the number of countries visited as a blind measure of comparison is like asking a frat boy how many beers he had at a house party. Maybe it was fifty. Does that make him a better drinker?

Here’s a fun alternative, because in reality I don’t think that anything should be used as a comparison between the status of one traveler or another: let’s keep track of the ICTS stickers on the back of our passports. Not sure what I’m talking about? ICTS International is the organization that runs the second layer of security required for many passengers flying to the United States. Whose bag is that? Did you pack it? Has it been with you the entire time? Do you have any weapons? Those are the guys.

As soon as you pass their rigorous (but perhaps predictable) questions, a sticker goes on your passport and your information goes into a database that’s cross referenced with the airline prior to boarding. If you haven’t been approved, you can’t get on the plane.

ICTS is a another step — the sometimes laughably long process of making it from the ticket counter to the gate. That effort and that trudge through the swamp of international airline security should be heralded. I have not been to France; I have been through security at Charles de Gaulle. I have not been to sixty-seven countries. I have been patted down fifty-nine times, strip searched twice and chased through Heathrow on an electric cart. I have suffered, and these are my scars.

Count them up. I have 21 on a passport from 2004.