I think we all can agree that flight cancellations are the worst. But for some stranded Sprit Airlines passengers in Florida, it proved to be more than they–and the airline staff, for that matter–could handle.

Travelers began screaming at airline employees and throwing punches inside of Fort Lauderdale’s airport Monday evening after the budget airline announced the cancellation of several flights, leaving hundreds stranded.

The situation went viral after cellphone footage captured Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies struggling to break up a fight between two women near Spirit Airline’s ticket check-in counter.

Chaos at a Florida airport after @SpiritAirlines flights are canceled: https://t.co/5fkrx1xerS pic.twitter.com/7vlufN3TD6

— NBC DFW (@NBCDFW) May 9, 2017

A massive brawl broke out at a Florida airport when Spirit Airlines cancelled 81 flights in one day https://t.co/xn4oiwg0L7 pic.twitter.com/Nvog2Xyymh

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 9, 2017

In another video, police wrestled a man to the ground near the ticket counter and placed him in handcuffs.

Just witnessed police brutality at Fort Lauderdale airport @SpiritAirlines trying to get back to NYC…i’m tired its 2017 pic.twitter.com/3UHGUqCuwm

— Brionka Halbert (@brionkahalbert) May 9, 2017

Altogether, the deputies arrested three people for inciting the crowd of about 500 customers. They face charges of inciting or encouraging a riot, disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and trespassing after receiving a warning.

According to Buzzfeed News, Spirit alleged in a lawsuit filed Monday that its pilots and their labor union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), conspired to purposefully reduce pilot availability, resulting in approximately 300 canceled flights over the past week. On Sunday alone, the airline said it was forced to cancel 81 flights–17 percent of its scheduled flights for that day–because pilots refused to work amid contentious contract negotiations.

Spirit estimates that about 20,000 customers have been affected since the cancellations began last week.

“We are disappointed that ALPA has decided to engage in this unlawful slowdown,” said Paul Berry, Spirit spokesman, in a statement. “This has led to canceled flights and prevented our customers from taking their planned travel, all for the sole purpose of influencing current labor negotiations. So we reluctantly filed this suit to protect our customers’ and our operations.”

“This is clearly unlawful activity under the Railway Labor Act, which governs labor relations in the airline industry,” Berry added. “ALPA and those individuals responsible should be held accountable.”

Spirit has been in contract negotiations with its pilots for the past two years, after they expressed dissatisfaction with current pay rates, retirement benefits, and the airline’s lack of profit-sharing.

As a result, pilots have refused to accept junior assignments or pick up “open time flying,” which has dramatically impacted Spirit’s ability to operate smoothly. The union, on the other hand, denies urging members not to accept assignments.

In June of last year, Spirit pilots went on a five-day strike that left thousands of passengers stranded. Then, in October, nearly 100 pilots picketed at the Dallas Fort Worth airport and outside Spirit’s headquarters in Miramar, Florida.

This all comes as the airline industry is under fire after a series of intense customer service scandals made headlines across the nation. With summer quickly approaching, the industry as a whole could really benefit from some good PR as travelers begin to prep for vacation travel.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spirit Flight Cancellations Lead to Passenger Brawl at Ft. Lauderdale Airport appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

U.S. Government Restricts Flying With Electronics from Eight Muslim-Majority Countries

The U.S. government has issued a restriction banning electronic devices such as laptops and iPads on flights from eight Muslim-majority countries. The countries affected by this restriction are not the same ones included in the now-infamous travel ban. The affected countries are Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Passengers from these eight countries will not be allowed to travel with electronics bigger than a cellphone in their carry on luggage, but they can place them in their checked luggage.

This is sure to pose an inconvenience for passengers traveling from the Middle East to the U.S. who will not be able to use their devices for work or entertainment on long flights. And most people are confused by the rules, as the new list includes countries that traditionally have been U.S. allies and are not included on the travel ban. Experts are also criticizing the logic behind the rule. If someone placed a bomb inside a laptop, it would be just as dangerous in the cargo hold as it would be in the cabin of a plane.

It is strange that this electronics ban is about security, but includes no countries on the #MuslimBan, which was also about security.

— Adrienne Mahsa (@AdrienneMahsa) March 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Immigration Enforcement Rules Could Affect Millions

Yesterday, the government began issuing some new guidelines for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The new rules, detailed via a pair of memos, are very aggressive and would focus on people who are charged with or suspected of crimes–previous guidelines prioritized those who have been convicted. These crimes can include minor offenses, like abuse of government benefits or engaging in “willful misrepresentation” in any official matter.

In the memos, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also said that officials can deport any undocumented immigrants they believe could pose a threat to national security. He also called for the hiring of 15,000 new border patrol agents and for the building of the wall on the Mexican border to begin. It is unclear how this would be funded, but millions of people could potentially face deportation.

TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON THE ‘UNDOCUMENTED’: Trump’s new barbaric order can literally rip a family apart for jaywalking https://t.co/rIYXPjA20k

— Bill Madden (@activist360) February 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It looks like it’s going to be easier and cheaper to get to Mexico soon, thanks to the loosening of many regulations on commercial flights. In December 2015, Mexico and the United States agreed to open their aviation markets. According to the State Department:

The new agreement removes limits on the number of airlines serving any U.S.-Mexico city pairs and expands opportunities for travel and trade between the United States and Mexico.

Traditionally, only a few airlines were allowed to fly to each Mexican city (and vice versa). But government officials hope that the deal will increase competition, and as a result, prices will be lowered. Even if prices don’t drop that much, increased choice in times and destinations of flight will probably be welcomed by many customers.

The opening up of the aviation markets has caused airlines to add flights from the U.S. to Mexico–America, Delta, and Southwest have all already announced that they’re expanding their offerings. Due to how busy Mexico City’s airport tends to be, flights under these new regulations are more likely to go to popular vacation destinations. One of Southwest’s executives stated, specifically about the airline’s expanded offerings from California to the Mexican cities of Cancun, San Jose del Cabo/Los Cabos, and Puerto Vallarta:

We are able to do what we have done for decades in California and in cities across the country: enter a nonstop market, bring low fares with unmatched value, and connect people in a more affordable way with places that are important in their lives.

The relationship between the United States and Mexico has been a bit uncomfortable during this year’s contentious election, and so a focus on easier tourism and trade is a welcome piece of good news.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s About to Get Easier to Visit Mexico: Limits on U.S.-Mexico Flights Lifted appeared first on Law Street.

About a year after resuming the diplomatic relationship with Cuba, the U.S. government has just approved direct commercial flights from 10 American cities to Havana. This is yet another step toward thawing a relationship that has been icy since 1961.

A statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation reads:

Today we take another important step toward delivering on President Obama’s promise to reengage Cuba […] Restoring regular air service holds tremendous potential to reunite Cuban American families and foster education and opportunities for American businesses of all sizes.

Officials first signed an agreement to open up American flights to Cuba in February—for the first time in more than half a century. Last month, the Transportation Department approved flights to other cities in Cuba, but now the time has come to allow air travel to the the capital city, Havana. American Airlines will receive the biggest share of flights, at 35 per week, closely followed by JetBlue with 27.

Thinking about traveling to #Cuba? Watch this video from @USEmbCuba on 5 things to know before you go! https://t.co/mHQ429chlC

— Travel – State Dept (@TravelGov) July 7, 2016

The American cities that the flights will depart from are: Atlanta, Charlotte, North Carolina, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, New York, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale.

Florida has the highest Cuban-American population in the U.S., and so four cities will launch the most flights, at 85 per week. Demand will be high from Cuban-Americans, according to the Miami Herald.

Since Fidel Castro seized power and started collaborating with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s, there has been mutual mistrust and economic sanctions on Cuba. The trade embargo also meant a travel ban, so that Americans could not visit the island legally.

When Obama came into office, he started working towards easing the bans and sanctions, in an effort to normalize the relationship. In 2009 he lifted the travel ban for Cuban-Americans, making it easier for people to visit relatives and travel freely.

La Habana, Cuba – Raw & Beauty, Old Glory | GLOB▲L – M▲G▲ZINE https://t.co/rW8jNvTa6z pic.twitter.com/8ABATUhrIa

— Be ▲rtist Be ▲rt (@BeArtist_BeArt) July 7, 2016

However, the ban on American tourism in Cuba is still in place, so airlines will be required to record the reason why passengers are traveling there. But if you don’t have relatives on the island and want to visit, don’t fret. There are 12 scenarios where you could still be allowed to visit. For example, you’re ok to go if it’s for religious activities, to make a public performance, or compete in an athletic competition.

The decision about the flights won’t be final until after a 30-day trial period during which potential complaints or objections will be handled. The first U.S. to Cuba flight is scheduled to fly from Fort Lauderdale to Santa Clara in September.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Approves Direct Flights From 10 Cities to Havana appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 Summer Olympics will be hosted in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and it seems like hardly anyone is excited about them. The trouble is, those seats might be pretty empty. Only half of the tickets have been sold–and demand is so low that Brazil might be buying its own tickets (the government is considering purchasing tickets to distribute to public school students.) Those students might be well-advised to stay home during those days, however, to avoid the likely chaos of the Olympic Games. The deck is stacked against Brazil in more than a few ways–pollution, illness, poverty, and crime all swarm around the event in Rio.

Erik Heil, an Olympic sailor, went for a test-swim in the Rio waters during an Olympic test event last August. After his exposure to the water, he became infected with the flesh-eating disease MRSA and had to be hospitalized. The Associated Press performed a test of the water, and the results are astonishingly bad–the analysis found “human sewage at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” Athletes might refuse to participate in the Olympic events if their health is at risk.

It doesn’t help that Brazil has a reputation for being the murder capital of the world. And while Rio isn’t the most dangerous city by a long shot, crimes on the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana have been escalating in recent months, in anticipation of a tourism influx. Plus, the connection between large sporting events and spikes in crime was well documented during the World Cup in 2014, when muggings grew 60 percent.

After the Ebola scare of 2014, international travelers are extremely sensitive to the health risks involved in visiting a new country. As concern about the Zika virus grows, would-be spectators, especially women, are less inclined to put themselves at risk–Brazil is in a part of the world where the Aegyptus mosquito, the insect responsible for most Zika transmission, is prevalent. Olympic officials have announced that event spaces will be regularly inspected, so that there are no puddles of stagnant water in which mosquitos could reproduce.

Brazil is also experiencing its worst recession in 25 years, amidst political turmoil–the government is considering impeaching President Dilma Rousseff, and the country’s economy is expected to shrink around 3.5 percent this year. Considering that the government has spent over 39.1 billion reais (about 10.8 billion dollars) on building stadiums and extending their subway lines, the investment could be a massive failure. All of these problems could spell trouble for the Olympics, but with so much money invested, Olympic officials are arguing that the show must go on. You might even be able to get cheap tickets to your favorite event–perhaps the newly added Olympic golf?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil’s 2016 Olympics: Does Anyone Want to Go to Rio? appeared first on Law Street.

Mexico City is a bustling metropolis that attracts millions of visitors from across the world every year. The city is home to Frida Kahlo’s restored house, the Floating Gardens of Xochimilco, the prestigious Souymaya Museum, and dozens of other historic cultural sites. It is no wonder that it has has been ranked the number one travel destination for 2016 by The New York Times. Yet, through an American lens, the entire nation of Mexico is synonymous with drugs, murder, and corruption.

Mexico City, just like any other urban center, is not a paragon of virtue and safety, but it is also not the national hub of organized crime and violence many think. Mexico City is not included in the U.S. State Department’s Travel Warning for Mexico and is not considered to be unusually dangerous for tourists either by global standards or by domestic standards. In fact, Acapulco, the famous resort city with idyllic beaches and futuristic high rises, is the most dangerous city in the country.

Mexico City did witness a troubling rise in homicide rates in 2015 but it is still considered an oasis for travelers and natives alike. The Northern areas of Mexico are generally considered to be the most dangerous, as they are home to the trading routes for drug cartels, but tourists are more likely to be robbed than they are to be caught up in the drug war. Metro and buses within Mexico City are generally considered to be safe, although tourist buses traveling to the pyramids of Teotihuacan outside the city have been robbed in the past.

Mexico City has lower homicide rates than a great deal of American cities and is safer than the capital cities of many of its Latin American neighbors. The most common crimes against tourists are petty theft and robbery during taxi rides, but Mexico City hoteliers go out of their way to make sure that visitors are as safe as possible. There are areas in the city which tourists are advised not to enter–Tepito, Lagunilla, Iztapalapa, and Nezahualcoyotl–but the same is true for any large city in America or Europe. Making generalizations about an entire country based on its most violent regions is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Mexico has rich artistic, musical and culinary traditions that travelers will miss out on if they buy into the fiction that all of Mexico is filled with criminals out to take their lives.

Tourists do not eschew visiting the cultural sites of the United States because of our crime rates, therefore we should not write off an entire nation because of regional violence (especially not when our own State Department has not issued a travel warning for the nation as a whole). Superimposing the violence in Acapulco or Ciudad Juarez over Mexico City is a foolish mistake that trivializes the sheer size of Mexico–these cities are not all adjacent! When we view Mexico City through sensational anecdotal evidence rather than the reality on the ground, we cut ourselves off from incredible destinations within our own hemisphere.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Myths of Violence in Mexico City: Is it Safe to Travel There? appeared first on Law Street.

The evolution of 3D printing promises to be a technological revolution, but it also may lead to some serious security concerns. One big issue is the ability to replicate something seen in a picture on a 3D printer. For example, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials have access to master keys that can unlock any TSA-approved luggage locks–and now because the blueprints were leaked online, those keys can be replicated by someone who has a 3D printer as well.

Estimates believe that more than 300 million locks were compromised by the leak. The locks that are sold as “TSA friendly” often appear in duty-free or other travel shops and labeled as such. They’re popular because they allow fliers to lock their belongings with the peace of mind that the TSA won’t rip their bags trying to get in them.

A picture of the master keys that the TSA officers use was part of a recent Washington Post article that discussed TSA procedures when it comes to luggage. Although the pictures were taken down after the realization that this was a major security breach, the damage was done. After all, researchers have determined that keys can reproduced from a picture taken over 200 feet away.

The pictures were used to derive blueprints that could be used to make 3D printed keys. Those blueprints were leaked by a man based out of France named Stephen K., who posted the files on GitHub, a site that can be used to host and share these kinds of files. He told PCMag:

I made [the keys] for the technical challenge. I released [the] CAD files because I’m a partisan of full disclosure, and also because these kind of government backdoors are totally absurd in 2015.

He also told WIRED:

Honestly I wasn’t expecting this to work, even though I tried to be as accurate as possible from the pictures. I did this for fun and don’t even have a TSA-approved lock to test. But if someone reported it that my 3D models are working, well, that’s cool, and it shows…how a simple picture of a set of keys can compromise a whole system

At least one man, Bernard Bolduc, from Montreal has printed the keys based off of the blueprints and tested them, determining that they do work.

OMG, it’s actually working!!! pic.twitter.com/rotJPJqjTg

— Bernard Bolduc (@bernard) September 9, 2015

This is obviously a concerning discovery that doesn’t just stop with the fact that it might be a little bit easier for thieves to get into our baggage. Protecting blueprints to keys, or like devices, is more important than ever, as the technology to replicate them continues to become fine-tuned. While the TSA hasn’t commented on this breach yet, this news doesn’t look good for the much-beleaguered travel security agency.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 3D Printed Keys: Could They Be Used to Open Locked Luggage? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently an Amtrak train traveling the busy northeast corridor route near Philadelphia derailed at a high speed, killing eight people and injuring more than 200. While experts weigh in over the speed of the train, the state of the engineer, and whether the locomotive was struck by a foreign object, many other people are now concerned about a different matter: the safety of trains in the United States. Read on to learn about the development of the train industry in the U.S., the rules and regulations that trains must follow, and considerations moving forward in light of the recent, horrific Amtrak crash.

Locomotives: The American Backstory

The first charter for a railroad in North America was granted to John Stevens in 1815. The same man also tested the first steam locomotive in the United States, nine years later in 1826. A railroad boom began in 1840, stemming from the northeast. However, this initial expansion was beset by unregulated practices and differing track gauges, which kept the lines from unifying. Individual owners of regional charters fought over territory. This chaos led to dangerous conditions for passengers and cargo traveling by rail.

As track mileage continued to expand rapidly, the rail industry achieved one of its greatest moments with the completion of the transcontinental railway in 1869 in Promontory Point, Utah. Starting in the 1880s and continuing through the 1920s, rail companies enjoyed greatest success. This was in part due to owners finally agreeing to standardize track gauge size and the development of a number of safety features that also improved efficiency. Ultimately, 1916 served as a peak year, with rail mileage reaching an all time high in the United States and stretching a total of 254,000 miles.

This expansion would come to a halt in the 1930s however, with the rise of individual automobiles and continue to stagnate throughout the 1940s and 50s following WWII. In the 1960s train companies began merging or going bankrupt, as passenger and freight numbers continued to dwindle. In 1971 Amtrak, a government supported system that dealt primarily with passenger traffic, was created. Even with government support however, the train network nationwide would likely have collapsed without a move towards deregulation in 1980. This move allowed the remaining companies to negotiate better rates and drop routes that were unprofitable.

This renaissance has continued into the present, as companies have merged into larger and larger entities. Freight has also returned to rail in large numbers, so much so that it is actually in danger of overwhelming the current system. Passenger travel has also increased, as people seek to avoid traffic and relax during commutes. The following video gives an overview of the history and development of railroads in the U.S.:

Trains By the Numbers

People

In the 2014 fiscal year, 30.9 million people rode Amtrak trains. During that same year 11.6 million passengers rode along the Northeast Corridor route, where the recent accident occurred. This was a 3.3 percent increase from the year before. In fact, this route is so popular that it actually accounts for 77 percent of combined rail and air travel between Washington DC and New York. These numbers would likely be even higher, except that Amtrak suffers from outdated infrastructure and has its efficiency hampered by freight trains using the same rails.

Freight

So exactly how much freight do these cumbersome trains move each year in the U.S.? In 2010, approximately 1.7 billion tons of freight were transported on rails, the last year with complete data. This accounted for 16 percent of the total freight shipped within the U.S. and equated $427 billion dollars. The industry is dominated by seven major carriers that employ 175,000 people. The number is expected to grow in the future, but is currently stagnant due to old infrastructure and insufficient investment.

Incidents

With all these people and things being moved by rail, the next questions is how likely are accidents like the one outside of Philadelphia? The answer is extremely unlikely. In fact, a person is 17 times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a train accident. While some of this can be explained by the obvious fact that most people travel in cars more than they travel in trains, the accident rate is also lower. There’s just .43 accidents per billion passenger miles for train travel versus 7.3 accidents per billion passenger miles for cars.

In addition, when rail accidents do occur, they usually do not involve passengers, as most rail traffic is moving freight. Thus, while 1,241 derailments occurred last year, there were few injuries. Furthermore, while the number of derailments may seem fairly high, it is less than half the number seen just thirty years ago. Most of the derailments that do still occur are a result of track conditions like the ones being blamed in the recent high profile crash. Experts worry that these are a result of underfunding, especially when it comes to Amtrak. This is the case even with ridership growing in the Northeast corridor route because Amtrak must spread its revenue across all its routes and many of them don’t make a profit.

Rules and Regulations

Benefits of Deregulation

As touched on earlier, the railroad industry actually experienced deregulation in the 1980s. The railroad industry wasn’t doing well, and needed to become more flexible in order to survive. Thanks to two separate acts passed in Congress, in 1976 and 1980 respectively, a collapse of the railroad industry was avoided. Basically both these acts provided greater flexibility to railroad companies to negotiate rates, change routes, and merge to stave off insolvency. While fears grew of monopolies, these acts were also designed to lower the cost on entry into rail travel and transport, which was supposed to prevent any one company from dominating the industry. Since these acts went into effect, the rail industry has enjoyed a strong comeback. Additionally, deregulating the rail industry may have also improved infrastructure, as the large companies that have come to dominate rail traffic can afford to reinvest in improving safety and the technology that guides their trains.

Thus, while the technology and knowledge exists to improve safety and prevent accidents like the one in Pennsylvania, everything ultimately comes back to money. In 2008, Congress passed a bill requiring trains to implement a system known as positive train control. This utilizes a number of technologies to sense how fast a train is moving and slow it down if necessary. However while this system was in place on the tracks going the opposite direction it was not yet in position on the tracks heading northbound towards Philadelphia. The accompanying video explains some of the safety measures in place, particularly positive train control:

There are other measures in place to alert the conductor and slow down the train as well. If the conductor does not alter the train’s trajectory in any way for a certain amount of time, bells go off in the cabin to alert him or her. Additionally, the train is also supposed to slow itself down, but it was unclear if these safeguards were initiated before the crash.

Money Troubles

However, in its 2008 decision, Congress required Amtrak to bid for the communications channels required to send and receive signals. For an already cash-strapped system that was also facing major budget cuts, this was a deadly requirement. Implementing this technology costs $52,000 dollars per mile and must be universally applicable to a variety of trains that use different technology. Nonetheless, despite all these challenges, the Amtrak system was actually one of the leaders and was one of the few on pace to complete the required installation by 2018.

Following the crash however, Congress vetoed a bill being pushed by President Obama that called for $1 billion dollars in additional funding for Amtrak. This funding is clearly needed not just because of this crash but also because of how Amtrak compares to foreign train systems. In the UK for example, this type of braking technology has been in place for nearly ten years. This is also true in other more train-centric countries such as France and Japan.

Shipping Oil

Along with recent concerns over rail safety in general, there are long standing worries over trains carrying oil. Due to the nation’s energy boom, trains are increasing being relied upon to transport oil. For example, in 2012 trains shipped more than 40 times the amount of oil they did just four years earlier, an amount which doubled again in 2013.  The video below documents the rise and danger of shipping oil by rail:

This increased traffic has also led to an increase in the number of accidents. In 2014 there were 141 incidents termed “unintentional releases” of oil. The year before, while there were less individual incidents, even more oil was spilled, about 1.4 million gallons. For some perspective, that amount was more than all the oil that had ever been spilled by train transport to that point. These spills and accidents can lead to massive explosions, deaths and contaminated ecosystems. The increasing threat is so troubling that some people are calling for more pipelines to be built, rehashing the Keystone Pipeline debate.

Thus, while all trains are facing tighter rules and regulations, those carrying oil and gas are facing the most stringent changes to protocol. In new rules outlined at the beginning of May, more durable containers are now required for transporting fuel in the event of a crash. Additionally, trains are required to go no faster than 30 miles an hour unless they have electronic brakes. This action was part of a joint announcement in conjunction with Canada. It was also in the wake of a number of crashes involving fuel shipments, including four this year alone. This has also rekindled the argument over lack of funding and overly tight timelines.

Conclusion

The crash of an Amtrak train along the nation’s busiest passenger rail route has raised fears over train safety. These fears are compounded by a rail industry facing budgets cuts and relying on outdated technology. However, the rate of crashes and derailments remain low, especially in relation to other types of transportation such as cars. Nevertheless, in the future more investment and infrastructure improvements must be made in order to prevent accidents, like the one outside of Philadelphia, from repeating themselves. Greater efforts must also be made and continue to be made to regulate the usage of trains in moving massive quantities of oil, which has proven very dangerous. The rail system is the unsung and often forgotten cog of the transportation system in the U.S. But, it only takes one accident to put concerns over its safety back on America’s one mind.

Resources

American-Rails: Railroad History: An Overview of the Past

The New York Times: Amtrak Says Shortfalls and Rules Delayed its Safety System

Washington Post: Trains and Carrying and Spilling a Record Amount of Oil

CNN: Amtrak Installs Speed Controls at Fatal Crash Site

Amtrak: News Release

Guardian: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor

Center for American Progress: Getting America’s Freight Back on the Move

Vox: 4 Facts Everyone Should Know about Train Accidents

Hofstra University: Rail Deregulation in the United States

Guardian: Amtrak How America Lags Behind the Rest of the Developed World on Train Safety

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Lays Down Stricter Railcar Rules

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fatal Amtrak Derailment Casts Light on a Forgotten American Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Traveling to the Caribbean for a relaxing beach getaway sounds like the ideal vacation, but for one Delaware family, spring break at a luxury resort ended with all four family members being hospitalized due to possible pesticide poisoning.

According to ABC News, school administrator Steve Esmond, his wife Dr. Theresa Devine, and their two teenage sons may have been exposed to the pesticide methyl bromide after traveling to the Sirenusa Resort on St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands for spring break. Initial reports from Judith Enck, administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 2 Office, which covers the U.S. Virgin Islands, indicated that the family arrived March 18 at their second floor condo, the same day that the apartment below them was sprayed with the harmful pesticide in order to combat an indoor bug problem.

POISONED IN PARADISE: Entire family stricken at Caribbean resort…What may be to blame? http://t.co/qK1LZ5oHJy pic.twitter.com/hhSzbb5klM

— Eyewitness News (@ABC7NY) April 6, 2015

Enck said that by March 20 the entire family became seriously ill with both boys, ages 16 and 14, experiencing seizures. After being taken to a hospital on the neighboring island St. Thomas by paramedics, the boys were then airlifted to a hospital in Philadelphia, while the parents were airlifted to a hospital in Delaware. The mother is currently undergoing occupational therapy after being treated and released, but both sons remain in serious condition in comas while their father just recently became stable.

Methyl Bromide is a potent neurotoxin that can cause central nervous system and respiratory failure after high exposure. Enck told ABC that the EPA banned methyl bromide for indoor residential use in the 1980s, but the product still is on the market for agricultural use.

According to ABC, both the EPA and Department of Justice have launched separate investigations into the incident in order to determine if the dangerous chemical was in fact being unsafely and illegally used by the pest control company Terminix in the vicinity of the family. This family’s ordeal may be frightening for other vacationers planning to travel soon, but both departments are hoping to uncover the truth behind what made this family’s tropical vacation turn into a frightening fight for their lives.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Family Possibly Poisoned by Pesticides on Caribbean Vacation appeared first on Law Street.

I’m an avid backpacker. While shopping for a new, sturdy backpack to travel across Southeast Asia, I asked my military friend for an old duffel bag or something similar to use. He responded, “No, it’s too dangerous. Wearing military gear through airports, or anywhere abroad can make you a target. Anyone with anti-American ideologies could rob you, heckle you, or kill you. So, no. Besides, we’re not supposed to.”

My friend is referencing the physical presence, but what about on social media? We might avoid posting our political views in fear of them affecting job prospects sure, but have you ever considered your online affiliations affecting your safety–your life?

This may be something the U.S. Government and Military personnel will have to consider in the digital age, especially since terrorist organizations all have social media pages.

A group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division posted the names, photos, and addresses of about 100 U.S. troops online, calling for attacks against them. Those most likely to respond will be lone wolves. A term given to individual terrorists who carry out attacks alone in the name of a greater cause…whatever that may be.

Investigations are underway to understand the validity of the post, the methodology the group used to attain the names, and the credibility of the group itself.

In theory, ISIS or any terrorist group could see a military car decal, a Facebook profile picture, an online entry to a military spouse support group, or even see you open your wallet with a military I.D. After that they could find you, stalk you…and then what?

That’s an extreme. Let’s say no attack is ever carried out. At the very least, these terrorists are inciting fear in our military families, pressuring them to limit their online presence–the pride they have in their careers and country–and effectively go into hiding. That’s an issue in itself.

One such Twitter account posted, “We won’t stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!” The account has since been deleted. Twitter has been pretty adamant about suspending and deleting ISIS content. As a result, the group has sought refuge in Diaspora, a social site that consists of a group of independently owned pods, which makes it difficult for administrators to remove content.

It’s unfortunate we have to be vigilant against what’s exposed on social networks in the name of terrorism. We must continue to report graphic and hateful messages, and protect the honor of those like Steven Sotloff, James Foley, Kayla Jean Mueller–the list goes on.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Uses Twitter to Publish Hit List of U.S. Military Personnel appeared first on Law Street.

Measles probably doesn’t make your list of top Disneyland souvenirs. Unfortunately, many unvaccinated visitors to Disneyland in California brought measles home along with mouse ears this season. It gets worse, because these people unknowingly shared their viral souvenir with other unvaccinated people in schools, banks, and even on public transportation. The result? A multi-state measles outbreak that has sparked a tirade of vaccination discourse. If measles can happen in the “happiest place on Earth” of all settings, we’re all in trouble.

Read on to find out more about these measles everyone’s talking about and why some people choose to opt out of a vaccine that most experts agree is safe and effective.

Why We’re Seeing Cases Now

Once upon a time (in the year 2000), the United States declared measles eliminated. Don’t get too excited. Eliminated in this sense doesn’t mean annihilated or wiped out completely like Dodo birds or Blockbuster stores. In 2000, measles was no longer endemic, or transmitted in the United States for twelve months or more. That happily ever after did not last long. Since then, measles cases have slowly but surely crawled back up; check out the CDC’s breakdown here. Overall, there have been 121 cases reported from January 1 to February 6, 2015.

Why the climbing cases? Although measles was eliminated in the United States, there was still plenty of it going around the rest of the world, especially in places without the same vaccination resources as the United States. In developing countries, measles causes about one million deaths each year.

Measles from the rest of the globe crept back into the United States on the coattails of international visitors or jet-setting residents. For example, experts trace the California outbreak to a traveler who was infected overseas. This person exposed other Disneyland visitors and the virus quickly spread throughout unvaccinated clusters in California.

Why is measles so hard to fight?

We’ll chalk it up to two basic reasons, each individually complicated:

1. Measles spreads like wildfire.
2. Our defenses have some holes, especially from the decrease in herd immunity caused by a growing number of unvaccinated children.

Let’s talk about each in more detail.

Measles is Viral Wildfire

In this most recent outbreak, cases of measles grew by 19 percent in just one week according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Here are some other reasons that measles is viral wildfire:

• Measles infects about 90 percent of the unvaccinated people it reaches, making it one of the world’s most contagious diseases.
• It doesn’t require direct contact to spread; the airborne virus jumps easily from person to person through aerosol droplets. (One germ-laden cough or sneeze is all it takes.)
• The first symptoms of measles include coughing, runny nose, and fever–pretty much the same as any other regular, old cold. Infected people will probably still be out and about, infecting other people.
• It has a high reproduction factor. One person can infect about 12 to 18 others. That’s six to nine times more infectious than the flu virus that caused the 1918 flu pandemic.
• Many young doctors have never seen a measles case, so infected people go undiagnosed and spread the disease.
• It’s hard to contain. Health workers have to track down exposed people, a task that gets harder as more become infected.
• It’s also expensive. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee says that Arizona hospitals spent $800,000 to isolate seven measles cases.

What’s more, measles can be severe. Before vaccinations, measles caused about 2.6 million deaths worldwide each year. In populations with malnutrition and poor health care, almost ten percent of measles cases end in death. Death occurs because of complications that result from measles, including encephalitis, pneumonia, and even blindness.

The World Health Organization calls the measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health, attributed to preventing about 15.6 million deaths in 13 years. Vaccines work because measles is considered antigenically stable; it doesn’t shift or drift to get around our immune system like the flu can. So one shot pretty much leads to lifetime immunity.

No antiviral treatment for measles exists. Most often it’s treated with supplements of Vitamin A and proper hydration, but you still have to let the disease run its course. Prevention through vaccinations avoids all of this.

The Breach in Herd Immunity

Tiny, adorable babies (and other vulnerable groups) physically can’t get vaccinated. Without immunization, measles plows through the population, causing the most harm to babies with developing immune systems; however, if many people are immunized, they create a buffer that keeps those who can’t get immunized safe from the disease.  It’s call herd immunity.

Anti-vaccination sentiments cluster in certain geographical areas, breaching herd immunity on a local level. California is one area with clusters of unvaccinated people, thus why the most recent outbreak is so difficult to control. Clusters of unvaccinated people make ideal kindling for measles wildfire.

Watch the video below for a great explanation of why vaccines are important and how opting out is bad for the herd.

The idea of herd immunity puts the public health context back in the very personal choice of vaccination. Cooperation leads to successful herd immunity. The World Health Organization says 95 percent of people should be vaccinated to eliminate measles.

So, why don’t people just get vaccinated?

Downward trends in vaccination rates leave the United States vulnerable to measles attacks as we’re exposed to measles by global visitors and travel. If measles is so serious yet preventable, why do people still opt out?

There are many reasons that parents don’t get their kids vaccinated. They range from distrust of government to fear of negative side effects. In the California outbreak, people cite religious, philosophical, or personal reasons for opting out of vaccinations. Many doctors balk at the generally non-medical tone of these excuses.

Experts respond to doubts with a profusion of facts that counter most fears raised about vaccination. A 12-year study of Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccines found that it does not increase the risk for several suspected health outcomes. The World Health Organization published data that found no association between measles vaccines and Crohn’s disease. And plenty of other studies debunk common vaccination fears.

Here’s an alarming fact: in the anti-vaccination argument, facts don’t necessarily work. In some cases, arguing with facts as weapons makes the outcome worse. Research found that busting vaccine myths actually increases hesitancy around vaccination instead of raising intent to vaccinate. This all means that the sole strategy of many health communicators might actually backfire among this particularly skeptical target audience.

Why Facts Don’t Win the Vaccination Argument

People, unlike computers, pepper even their logical decisions with colorful human emotions. Many social and emotional factors influence how we perceive, interpret, and react to facts and science. Here are some reasons why cold facts don’t work in contentious arguments, like the vaccine debate.

We Cling to Naive Beliefs

People accept facts, but often cling to their intuitions with stunning zeal. This study demonstrates how even people with advanced scientific knowledge express natural delays when asked if the Earth orbits the Sun. From our humble perspective on Earth, this doesn’t look true. That simple intuition influences our initial gut reaction, even when we know facts to the contrary.

We’re Easily Influenced by Personal Anecdotes

Personal stories heighten naive beliefs. We’ll believe a friend’s anecdote about vaccines causing her child’s autism even when numerous facts state that it’s unlikely. Cold, hard facts can’t compete with your emotional reaction to the anecdote. A little intrigue might produce a similar effect. This study found parents less likely to vaccinate their kids after reading conspiracy theories on vaccination.

We Conform to Group Values

People make decisions that affirm their cultural identities and connections to people with shared values. It’s a tendency called cultural cognition. New info will pass through a pre-existing lens and if it’s contrary to fundamental beliefs, it might lead to even more polarization.

We Love to Be Right

The fancy word? Confirmation bias. It’s the tendency to seek out evidence that supports our current beliefs, regardless of accuracy. Emotionally charged issues inflate this tendency. The internet and on-demand television makes this force unstoppable. You can easily ensure you only hear what you want to hear.

Our Resources Hamper Our Decisions

Experts call it bounded rationality. We face difficult scientific issues, yet we still evaluate them with limited information, a fixed set of cognitive abilities, and limited time. Think of reading the terms and conditions before you buy a song on iTunes. You know it’s theoretically a good idea (just in case), but who has 45 minutes for that?

We Love Negative Talk

Negative information inspires more shares than positive information. One bit of negative news can eclipse five bits of positive news. In fact, negative talk about vaccines is more socially contagious than positive talk. Researchers have found that both positive and negative Tweets result in only more negative buzz.

So, now what?

To keep measles cases from increasing, more people need to be vaccinated. We could try to convince more people they should have their kids vaccinated or strengthen immunization laws and policy (e.g. making exemptions harder).

Convince More People They Should Vaccinate

As outlined above, the most avid vaccination opponents might be nearly impossible to turn. In fact, some vaccination opponents actively seek out measles infections for their children by hosting measles parties. The trial and error process involved in developing and testing new communications materials to target this finicky audience would be time consuming. Many experts believe we should move to strengthening immunization laws immediately before measles is able to become a more serious problem in the United States.

Strengthen Immunization Laws and Policy

Vaccination isn’t legally required and exemption allowances vary from state to state and can get pretty complicated. Lawmakers who recognize the need for change are proposing to overhaul vaccination laws in many states.

California is proposing to end personal (as opposed to medical or religious) exemptions. They’re also moving to require that public schools publish the percentage of enrolled children who are vaccinated, an effort that Arizona is also pursuing.

Other states are moving in the opposite direction. Montana and New York have introduced bills that would make parental exemptions easier. You can read more about recent vaccination-related legislation here. Be prepared for some interesting immunization debates in the coming months.

In addition to cracking down on state-by-state exemption policy, the Network for Public Health Law provides a few more suggestions, including pursuing tort claims, and taking a more active role in fighting measles globally.

Conclusion

Whatever path we take, vaccinations are here to stay. Unless we completely eradicate measles globally, vaccines will always be necessary to protect the United States from outbreaks. The recent outbreak in California (and other states) illustrates how important herd immunity really is. Vaccination is a personal choice that affects public health. How will we weigh personal rights against this public responsibility? Only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

World Health Organization: Measles Factsheet

CDC: Measles Cases and Outbreaks

Additional

National Geographic: Why Do So Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Measles Cases for 2015 Rise 18.6% Over Past Week

Center For Food Integrity: “Cracking the Code on Food Issues: Insights from Moms, Millennials and Foodies.”

Family Practice News: Measles Spread in Unvaccinated Clusters

Network for Public Health Law: Measles Control Made Easy: Stronger Laws Equal Less Disease

Family Practice News: Measles Deaths Slide by 74% as Immunizations Reach 82%

Expert Review of Vaccines: Vaccination Against Measles: A Neverending Story

Journal of Family Practice: Sobering Lessons from Two Travel Related Outbreaks

Future Virology: New Insights Into Measles Virus Propagation

Occidental College: Scientific Knowledge Suppresses But Does not Supplant Earlier Intuitions

Expert Review of Vaccines: Measles Elimination

Canadian Medical Association Journal: Measles Vaccination: A Shot of Common Sense

Science Daily: 12-year Study Confirms Overall Safety of Measles Vaccines

New Scientist: Ending MHR Shots Does Not Halt Rise in Autism

Family Practice News: MMR Shot Not Linked to Autism, Large Study Shows

Pediatrics: Neurologic Disorders After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination

Bulletin of the World Health Organization: Clinical Safety Issues of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccines

Pediatrics: Has the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine Been Fully Exonerated?

Infectious Disease Alert: Lack of Association of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination with Autism

Ohio State University: Confidence in Government Linked to Willingness to Vaccinate

Huffington Post: Six Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, and Shut Down

British Medical Journal: MMR Vaccination and Autism 1998: Deja Vu – Pertussis and Brain Damage 1974?

Science Daily: Social Norms Strongly Influence Vaccination Decisions, the Spread of Disease

Science Daily: Resurgence of Measles in U.S. Brings Pain, Suffering to Children

Science Daily: Vaccination Opt Out is a Cop Out That Literally is Making People Sick, Says Infectious Disease Leader

NBC Los Angeles: Timeline of Disneyland Measles Outbreak

Medical News Today: Why Myth-Busting Vaccination Fears is Trickier Than You Think

Science Daily: Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories May Have ‘Detrimental Consequences’ for Children’s Health

EurekAlert: On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments

Politico: Vaccination Foes on the Defensive

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Measles: Why is it Back and What Can Be Done? appeared first on Law Street.

How do you avoid getting arrested overseas?

While the most obvious answer would be by not breaking any laws, it’s hard enough to know the legal minutia in America, let alone the rest of the world. When you travel to another country, you are subject to its laws and are under its jurisdiction, not the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore you may be expelled, fined, arrested, or imprisoned if found in violation of foreign laws, even unknowingly.

Can I hold hands with my same-sex partner? Can I take a picture of this building? Is this outfit acceptable to wear in public? These are all important questions that you may not have considered before. Read on to learn about the ways you can protect yourself while traveling, and what to do if you do find yourself on the wrong side of a foreign law.

Before You Go

Before booking your boarding pass, first tour your country of interest’s available online resources, such as tourism sites, for valuable travel information. It’s also a good idea for travelers to research what crime trends are happening in that country as well to get an idea of what to stay away from. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs provides a convenient resource that allows travelers to research specific countries and learn key facts, entry and exit requirements, embassy locations, and important local laws of which to take note. The British government actually offers a better resource than the U.S. government does; Britain provides extensive country-specific “prisoner packs” on its website containing step-by-step information for those arrested, including arrest procedures, legal representation, and prison conditions and regulations.

While in a Foreign Country

Once you’ve made it safely to the country of your choice, there’s the matter of staying out of trouble. Here are a few tips on what to avoid and how to ward off unnecessary suspicion.

Keep Identification on You at All Times

The last thing you want to do is be caught in a foreign country without proper papers. In Russia, for example, traveling without identification could possibly lead to a tourist becoming detained. In the event that you are arrested you want to be able to prove that you are who you say you are, that you’re in the country legally, the purpose of your visit, and what kind of visa you have. The more information you can provide the easier it is for police officers to deduce whether or not you are a threat.

Beware of Drugs, Booze, and Ammunitions

It’s estimated that more than 7,000 Americans are locked up overseas every year and 2,500 are in jail at any given time. Attorney Dick Atkins, who’s spent the last 33 years helping Americans get out of legal trouble abroad, names drugs, booze, and ammunition as the three biggest culprits when it comes to overseas arrests. Even though some countries may have younger legal drinking ages, drunk and disorderly conduct is almost always still considered a punishable offense. He also advises not to leave leftover bullets in your suitcase even if you obtained them legally in the U.S., because in countries like Mexico it could get you locked up.

Illegal drugs have both alcohol and ammunitions offenses beat. According to the Bureau of Consular Affairs more than one-third of Americans incarcerated abroad are held on drug charges. That’s not surprising considering that most countries have a zero-tolerance policy for drug trafficking and recreational use, and apply hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences for those found in violation. For many, Amsterdam stands out as a novelty soft-drug destination due to its famed “coffee shops,” which serve small amounts of cannabis products over the counter to tourists who are 18 and up. In 2004, the Netherlands passed a law requiring people to have membership cards, known as “weed-passes,” to gain entry to the coffee shops, which are only available to Netherlands residents. Amsterdam’s mayor and the coffee shop owners fought back however, rejecting the cards and keeping the entry to their shops permissible to all of-age patrons. While the Dutch try to decriminalize drug use as much as possible, production, trading, and stocking drugs remain a serious criminal offense.

So, what do I do if I am arrested?

The first thing you should do if arrested is immediately ask the officials to notify the closest U.S. embassy of your arrest. Most countries are required to do so within a certain time window, but it varies, so it’s always better to be safe than sorry. Embassies don’t provide you with a get-out-of-jail-free card, though. Once you’ve been arrested, you must go through the foreign legal process for being charged or indicted, prosecuted, potentially convicted, and sentenced, and for any subsequent appeals process. Here are a few things that embassies can help with:

• Contact family members, friends, or employers.
• Explain to you the local legal procedures as well as provide a list of attorneys and translators who speak English.
• Establish a trust for detainees to receive funds when permissible under prison regulations (embassies are also prohibited from paying for your legal or medical fees or representing you in court).
• Work with prison officials to ensure treatment is consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards.
• Protest any allegations of abuse against American inmates.

There are also some overseas organizations, depending on your nationality, such as Britain’s Prisoners Abroad, that specialize in helping to lobby for the release of prisoners abroad as well as provide some monetary support in the form of grants.

Strange Laws Abroad

While some foreign laws only differ slightly from those in the U.S., some are just downright unexpected. For your benefit, here are a list of some particularly surprising offenses that if you aren’t cautious could land you in legal trouble.

 Overseas Prison Horror Stories

Once tangled in a foreign legal web, it’s hard to get out. It potentially takes cases months or even years to be resolved. Here are a few notable travelers’ horror stories to consider as cautionary tales.

Alan Gross

On December 17, 2014, 65-year-old Alan Gross, a subcontractor working for the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), was released from a Cuban prison after five years. While working on a project to improve wireless access to small communities in Cuba, Gross was arrested after allegedly smuggling electronic equipment and a satellite phone capable of bypassing Cuban restrictions on Internet and telecommunications to a small Jewish community.

While imprisoned, his health deteriorated and he underwent a hunger strike. After years of waiting, he was released in exchange for three members of the Cuban Five agents who were being held in U.S. prisons, paving the way for better relations between the U.S. and Cuba, easing travel restrictions, and including plans for a new U.S. embassy in Havana.

ARMA 3 Developers

In September 2012, Ivan Buchta and Martin Pezlar, two Czech Bohemia Interactive ARMA 3 video game developers were jailed in Greece for 218 days, accused of espionage after being caught photographing Greek military installations. The pair, actually vacationing on the isle of Lemnos, were presumed to be scouting locations for their upcoming military tactical shooting game. They were released from the Greek prison after four months and are still awaiting trial.

Merrill Newman 

On December 7, 2013, 85-year-old Korean war veteran Merrill Newman was released from a North Korean prison after being held for more than a month. At the conclusion of a ten-day guided tour of North Korea, Newman was pulled from his plane and held in connection to alleged war crimes he was said to have committed more than 60 years prior during his 1953 tour of duty. He was later forced to confess in a jailer-fabricated statement televised on North Korean State TV, which he read and signed.

Upon his release Newman later stated:

Anyone who has read the text of it or who has seen the video of me reading it knows that the words were not mine and were not delivered voluntarily. Anyone who knows me knows that I could not have done the things they had me ‘confess’ to.

---

Conclusion

Touring internationally is a cultural luxury that relatively few Americans are able to experience. That luxury can swiftly turn into a nightmare when ignorant mishaps land unsuspecting tourists in cuffs. So if you’re planning to travel soon, begin by researching your destination, heed the warnings, and most of all just be smart.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Consular Affairs 

Bureau of Consular Affairs :’A Safe Trip Abroad’ PDF 

British Gov: Passports, Travel, and Living Abroad 

Additional

Reader’s Digest: 13 Funny International Laws You’d Never Know Were Real

TRIP: Legal Advice For Americans Traveling Abroad 

Prisoners Abroad Website: Homepage 

Amsterdam: Amsterdam Drug Policy

Polygon: Arma 3 Developers Arrested

Daily Beast: Americans Locked Up Abroad

Washington Post: Korean War Veteran Merrill Newman Gives Detail of Detention by Pyongyang

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrested Overseas: What Travelers Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like all anyone can talk about anymore is Ebola. Especially now that the first case of Ebola has been found in the United States, in Dallas, and the first case transmitted outside Africa reported in Madrid, people seem to be freaking out. One big concern has been that Ebola is going to become an issue in the U.S., which I just want to start by saying is unfounded and unrealistic. The public health infrastructure in the U.S., as well as our ability to isolate the disease make it incredibly unlikely that it becomes an epidemic. You’re still significantly more likely to die of the flu, or a car accident than even go near someone who has Ebola. As of press time, Thomas Eric Duncan — the man in Dallas who had contracted Ebola — has passed away of the disease, and while our thoughts and sympathy are with his family, this development does not change the risk factors in the U.S.

People are losing their minds over it. Seriously, check out #EbolaQandA on Twitter. It makes me terrified — not of Ebola, but at the extent to which our American education system appears to have failed people when it comes to very, very basic concepts of health and geography. Now Ebola is an incredibly important world issue right now, and combating it absolutely deserves our attention, vigilance, and support. That being said, we all need to take a deep breath over here in the U.S., and stop listening to misinformation and conspiracy theories, because this is getting silly. Here’s a helpful flowchart for anyone who’s concerned about the spread of Ebola in America.

Worried about Ebola? Here's a flowchart just for you! #diseases #outbreak #EbolaOutbreak #notenoughwine pic.twitter.com/U6uvQd8MKf

— Melody Butler (@MelodyButler) August 2, 2014

There have been many proposals to try to keep the United States from having Ebola-infected people cross over our borders. One of the most extreme is a “travel ban” aimed at West African countries with high infection rates.

This sounds like a good idea in theory, it really does. But in reality, it’s not something the U.S. will do, or should do. First of all, the best way to make sure that the United States does not experience problems with Ebola is to stop the epidemic. And if we restrict our access and communication with the affected region, it’s just going to get worse. When there’s not a huge risk of Ebola reaching any sort of epidemic levels in the United States, it doesn’t make sense to impede our relief efforts with a ban. A travel ban could mean that relief workers have a harder time going in, or refuse to go at all because they worry that they might not be able to get back.

Also, instituting a travel ban could make it more likely that someone with a case of Ebola makes it into the U.S. If we have a ban in place for countries heavily infected like Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, people are going to find a way around it. They could go to Senegal, or any other nearby nation where travel is not restricted. Because of the ban they may be incentivized to lie about whether or not they’ve been in contact with an infected person in hopes of not being prevented from getting on a plane. Right now we’re able to track people and examine them at the airport and upon arrival, and we’re going to strengthen our tools for that. We shouldn’t incentivize anything that makes it harder for us to do that.

I’m not an expert in public health; I don’t know what will happen with this epidemic. But what I do know is that panicking is going to do nothing. Educate yourself. Donate to the relief effort. Don’t feed the frenzy. This crisis needs a pragmatic approach, not a reactionary one.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keep Calm and Carry On: You Don’t Have Ebola appeared first on Law Street.

While the World Cup brought some of the mot talented soccer players to the forefront, it also brought out some of the savviest criminals along with it. Much like the South African World Cup in 2010, spectators venturing to Brazil this summer were told to be wary and vigilant as crime was expected to make a meteoric rise as the games went on. Sadly, they were correct. From the cloning of debit cards to rudimentary muggings, fans from all over the world were victims of crimes during the World Cup

Crime was already on the rise in Rio de Janeiro in the months leading up to the World Cup, with muggings increasing an astounding 60 percent at the infamous Copacabana Beach. According to Rio’s crime statistics, muggings had increased 44 percent in the first four months of this year alone. As Brazil was expecting criminals to take advantage of the wide-eyed tourists exploring the country this summer, they started to “clean up” the infamous favelas. Police presence was amplified in the months leading up to the World Cup, which saw the arrests of dozens of hardened criminals. Despite this, fans still fell victim to crimes throughout the month-long tournament.

Jack Smith, an American who withdrew money in a Rio De Janeiro airport believes that his card was cloned instantaneously and used over the next couple of days to spend $12,000. Luckily, when he noticed the charges he immediately contacted his bank and they were able to cancel the card and cover the losses. “I’ve probably met 60 people here, and 20 have been hit,” Smith told Fox News. Some spectators were not as lucky as Smith and were unable to retrieve their stolen property.

Christian Alvarez, a Chilean fan, had $1,700 stolen from him at gunpoint outside his hotel. He contacted the Chilean consulate to try and get his money back but was unsuccessful. Another Chilean, Fabian Morales, lost his passport as he was celebrating Chile’s win over defending champions Spain.

Takeshi Itai, a Japanese tourist, was visiting a favela in the eastern region of Salvador when five men with guns approached his taxi. Luckily the taxi managed to drive away before the robbery could take place. “I’ll never go into a favela again. I never imagined I would have guns pulled on me,” Itai told the Japanese Times. Unfortunately for Brazil, it seems like the experiences from this World cup may discourage some fans from venturing to Rio for the 2016 Olympics.

At the start of the World Cup, the Brazilian government distributed a brochure detailing what to do in the event of a mugging. “Do not react, scream or ague,” the brochure said. They warned tourists to not carry a lot of cash on them, to not flaunt their valuables, and to do periodic checks to make sure no one was following them.

For those who could afford it, private security companies were available to provide round-the-clock security. iJET, a security company, estimates that between 30,000 to 60,000 people spent at least $10,000 on “enhanced security services,” at this World Cup. A lot of people are venturing down to the South American country not for pleasure, but for business. “These companies are sending their most valuable assets and customers down there,” John Rose, chief operator at iJET said.

Yet with the 25,000 police officers dispatched for the final, a 2-km police perimeter set around the stadium, and hundreds of personal security guards, chaos still ensued throughout the tournament. Fans watching the Brazil vs. Germany game at Fifa’s Fan Fest on Copacabana Beach were forced to flee after a group of masked men conducted a mass robbery, stealing bags and jewelry. An electronic store was looted, gunshots were fired into a large crowd, riots broke out, passports were stolen, fans fought each other, and buses were set ablaze. The buses burned in the neighborhoods of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city; and when the flames were finally put out nineteen buses were destroyed in total.

In my eyes, Brazil has lost this World Cup on all accounts. Brazil certainly lost in on the field after an embarrassing  7-1 defeat by Germany, which will be remembered for decades. It has lost the faith of tourists, the people who traveled to Brazil in hopes of celebrating this joyous event and soaking in the Brazilian culture, but were instead held at gunpoint, robbed, and assaulted. And it has lost the faith of its own people, after spending so much money — $14 billion to be exact — while the country is plagued by massive economic inequality and an ailing economy. We can only hope that in four years, when the World Cup dawns upon us again, Russia will do better.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Breno Peck via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Lost the World Cup and the Battle Against Crime appeared first on Law Street.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Allen Skyy via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Locked in Battle with New York Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.