I've Been Mugged

Survey: The Public's Views Of The NSA Spying Leak, The Whistle Blower, and a Wikileaks Comparison

Pew Research released the results of a survey conducted June 12 - 16, 2013. The survey, conducted by Pew Research and USA Today, asked 1,512 adults their opinions about the whistle blower and the impact of the leak about the NSA spying programs. Key results:

1. The public seems split over whether or not the whistle blower's leak served the public interest. 49% believe it served the public interest. 44% believe it harmed the public interest.
2. Most, 54%, believe the whistle blower should be criminally prosecuted.

Pew Research also found:

"Young people, by 60% to 34%, think that the NSA leak serves the public interest. Americans 30 and older are divided (46% serves vs. 47% harms)... the public has a more positive opinion about the impact of the revelations of NSA communications surveillance on the public interest than it did about the release of a massive trove of classified material about U.S. diplomatic relations by the Wikileaks website two-and-half years ago."

Pennsylvania Woman Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Employers For Mandatory Prepaid Card Use

Regular readers of this blog know that I have warned consumers in several blog posts about the dangers of prepaid cards. Sadly, one of my concerns is becoming all too real for employees.

Philly.com reported that a Pennsylvania woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against her former employer for forcing her to receive her pay on a prepaid card:

"Gunshannon, 27, of Dallas Township, worked at McDonald's Restaurant on the Dallas Highway from April 24 to May 15. When she received her first paycheck, enclosed was a Chase Bank debit card with instructions on how to use it and the fees attached... Gunshannon never signed the card and when she returned to work she asked her supervisor if she could be paid by check or by direct deposit. She was told the card was the only option."

The complaint alleges that this and other employers' prepaid-card-only payroll method violates state law. At the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, you can download the full text of the Wage Payment And Collection Law. According to the lawyer representing Gunshannon and the other plaintiffs:

"... many more people are coming forward and telling the same stories. Pennsylvania law states employees are entitled to have a choice to be paid by check or cash, he said."

It's infuriating to read a story like this, because this problem is entirely avoidable. When employers force employees to prepaid payroll cards, it is a loss of both money and freedom for employees. First, the monetary losses are immediate and direct. The employees immediately incur fees associated with the payroll prepaid card, regardless of whether the employees use the card or withdraws all money from the card to deposit it into a traditional checking/savings bank account.

Second, the employer has lost the freedom of choice. The employee cannot cancel the prepaid payroll card. And, the employer is deciding and choosing the banking choice, not the employee. With a traditional paper check, the employee had the choice of which bank to do business with. Not so with a payroll prepaid card, because the cards are tied to ATM networks with higher fees at banks that are not part of the network.

Third, you know your banking needs best, not your employer. Sadly, in this instance the employer is deciding regardless of the employees' needs. A responsible employer would provide a choice of payment methods; especially direct deposit for employees that already have traditional checking. They have these traditional bank accounts for a reason, often configured to avoid large monthly banking fees.

Employers should not force employees to use costly prepaid cards. I use the term "costly" because for employees making minimum wage, fees of $1.00 to $5.00 are enormous:

"According to the complaint filed, the JP Morgan Chase payroll card lists several fees, including a $1.50 charge for ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry, 75 cents per online bill payment and $15 for lost/stolen card."

Now, I am sure that the employer means well. What is undeniable is that in an instance like this, the employer has shifted some of their payroll costs to the employees. Consider: with traditional paper checks, the employer paid fees to a printer to print the checks, administrative costs to distribute those paper checks, and fees to the bank the checks were drawn on. Prepaid payroll cards enable employers to eliminate paper printing costs and check distribution costs; and probably lower their banking fees because the employees now incur prepaid payroll card fees they didn't incur previously. Of course, the online bank administering the prepaid payroll card loves the new revenue stream by charging fees to the larger number of employees.

While it's great that Gunshannon is standing up for herself and similar employees, it shouldn't be this way. It doesn't have to be this way. To learn more, read the articles below:

• How To Evaluate Prepaid Card Options
• Is It Wise To Move Your Money To a Prepaid Card?
• 5 Things You Should Know About Prepaid Cards
• Consumer Reports Reviews Several Prepaid Cards
• Your Rights And The Differences Between The Three Types of Plastic In Your Wallet or Purse
• Bank of American Merchant Services and Money Network Announce New Payroll Solution
• Move Your Money To... Walmart? A Good Deal?

2.4 Million Customers Leave The Five Biggest Banks In The UK

The Move Your Money campaign in the United Kingdom announced on June 12 that about 2.4 million customers have moved their accounts from the five largest banks to smaller and local banks:

"The figures, based on quarterly market polling publically available, show a mass movement away from the big banking groups, Lloyds, RBS, Barclays, HSBC and Santander. This represents a 5% point loss of the market share of current accounts, and demonstrates a massive response from ordinary people to a year of scandal by voting with their feet and switching who they bank with."

The data, drawn from industry studies, presents an increase in the migration of accounts from the big banks. Experts predict the trend to continue throughout 2013. Laura Willoughby MBE, Chief Executive of campaigning website MoveYourMoney.org.uk, said:

“The constant slew of scandals last year has opened the floodgates, and people are beginning to realise that they don’t have to put up with the arrogance of the big banks... People are switching because they are angry about the lack of reform in Britain’s broken banking system, and have decided to take matters into their own hands."

Many people are frustrated with the huge bonuses bankers paid themselves, and with the Libor rate-fixing scandal.

This is proof positive that consumers have power in the marketplace, and can have an impact. Consumers in the United Kingdom are using that power. Visit the Move Your Money website for the USA. Woe to the banks and companies that do not respect that power.

Q And A With NSA Surveillance Whistleblower

If you haven't read it, this morning the Guardian UK newspaper website featured a question-and-answer session with the NSA surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Some highlights are below. I found the whole exchange highly informative.

About rumored charges of treason reported in some media outlets, Snowden replied in the Q&A session:

"... I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash..."

About why he released the information when he did:

"Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge."

About the responses by Google and Facebook:

"Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception. They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the [PRISM] program..."

About the news media and replies by U.S. officials:

"... US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM. Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicion-less surveillance that could not be gained via any other source?"

About whistleblowers and the U.S. government's responses:

"... Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response."

If you want to learn more, search Twitter with the hashtag #AskSnowden.

Blogger Claims Toddlers Killed More People Than Terrorists In The USA This Year

This is not humor. At the Opposing Views website, blogger Stacie Borrello has started an interesting analysis. Borrello claimed:

""You you might be shocked to know that preschoolers with guns have taken more lives so far this year than the single U.S. terrorist attack, which claimed four lives in Boston."

Borello searched through news reports and found the instances where children ages 3 through 6 gained access to guns and killed people (e.g., others, parents, and/or themselves). She found 11 deaths in 5 months where the shooter was ages 3 to 6. Borello concluded:

"... most if not all of the above deaths and injuries can be attributed to careless adult gun owners... we still must reach a compromise to address gun violence. I do not have all the answers, but I know as responsible citizens we have to do something... People who worship the Second Amendment should recognize the “well-regulated” aspect of gun ownership that the forefathers intended..."

I hope that others build upon this analysis, to help us understand the impacts and reach of gun violence.

Research And Survey Results About Civil Liberties And Protection Against Terrorism

Disclosures last week about secret programs by the U.S. government that spy on both citizens' telephones and Internet usage, have raise the question: is it necessary to give up civil liberties for protection against terrorism. Several pundits and politicians (from both parties) have been quick to defend the current administration's programs.

I wanted some context with a reliable poll about what American believe and think about the issues. The Pew Research center provides some solid statistics with a historical perspective and context:

"...Since shortly after 9/11, Pew Research has asked whether people’s greater concern is that anti-terror policies will go too far in restricting civil liberties, or that they won’t go far enough in adequately protecting the country. The balance of opinion has consistently favored protection..."

Ten years after 9/11, things have changed. First:

"... fewer Americans think it will be necessary to sacrifice civil liberties to combat terrorism than did so shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that “in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties,” while 54% said it would not. A decade earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11 and before the passage of the Patriot Act, opinion was nearly the reverse (55% necessary, 35% not necessary)."

The table below highlights the flip in public opinion:

	% of Americans Surveyed Who Agree That It Is:
	Necessary to give up civil liberties for protection	Not necessary to give up civil liberties for protection
2001	55%	35%
2013	40%	54%

One of those civil liberties is privacy. The second shift is the opinion that government should track terror suspects, but not everyone. Spying on all Americans has historically gotten low support; even lower than other methods (e.g., ID cards, credit cards, airport checks):

	% of Americans Surveyed Who Support:
	Government monitoring personal phone calls and emails	Extra airport checks on passengers who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent
Aug., 2002	33%	59%
Dec. 2006	34%	57%
Aug. 2011	29%	53%

And, all of this was before the NSA spying disclosures.

In a recent poll by Pew Research and the Washington Post, people wereo asked whether they find it acceptable for:

"NSA getting secret court orders to track calls of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism..."

56% of respondents said this is acceptable while 41% don't. So, just over half of people support the FISA secret court program. Pew also asked:

"Should the government be able to monitor everyone's email to prevent possible terrorism?"

45% said yes while 52% said no. So, less than half of respondents support this. That is not a majority, nor what I would call a ringing endorsement. And, neither question really addressed Internet usage, since email is only part of a person's Internet usage. Plus, the questions didn't include any time parameters (e.g., sometimes).

There are a lot of polls circulating. How one frames or asks the questions greatly influences the results. For example, if you ask the question this way (E.g., Should the government monitor terror suspects? Do you think that it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice civil rights to fight terrorism? To prevent terrorism?), you will get very different results than if you ask it this way (e.g., Should the government monitor all citizens? Do you think that it is necessary to sacrifice civil rights to fight terrorism? To prevent terrorism?). One poll after the NSA spy disclosures cited support for government spying by British citizens. Polls of Americans generated conflicting results in 2006.

The Associated Press conducted a poll in 2011 (Adobe PDF document) and also asked the question straightaway:

"Q11. Do you think that it is sometimes necessary for the government to sacrifice some rights and freedoms to fight terrorism, or is it never necessary to sacrifice rights and freedoms to prevent against terrorism?"

The results: 64% of respondents said it was sometimes necessary. 33% said that it was never necessary. 2% said they didn't know. And 1% didn't answer the question. Note: nobody is agreeing to give up civil liberties perpetually or forever.

Since the NSA and PRISM spying programs have run consistently for about seven years, one can argue whether or not this meets the definition of "sometimes." To me, it doesn't meet the definition. Not even close.

ProPublica documented the history of changes in surveillance laws that have led to today. It's important to understand the changes also during the President George W. Bush administration.

So, is it necessary to give up civil liberties for protection against terrorism? This is a discussion we must have. And, our politicians must listen.

Americans get it. they don't want to trade civil liberties for protection. And, the balance between civil liberties and protection is out of balance. Woe to politicians who ignore the above facts.

CBS News Explains More About Prism, the Secret NSA Data Collection Program

The Guardian UK newspaper revealed on Wednesday some details about a secret spying operation by the NDA which collects Verizon user phone information. Thursday evening, CBS News discussed this and provided some additional details:

"It culls metadata from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple and will soon include Dropbox."

The program, called PRISM, also collects Internet usage. Also, you can read a PowerPoint document about PRISM at the Guardian UK site. Reportedly, the program started while George W. Bush was President.

What I found interesting. John Miler, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence and a commentator on CBS News, explained how "this is the spying business." Miller emphasized that the data collection allows autorities to determine patterns of communication. To investigate further and listen to entire phone conversations, authorities must get additional court approvals to access details about specific individuals.

Miller also briefly discussed metadata -- not the phone call's contents or conversations, but the descriptive data about the phone calls. Miller also explained briefly the terrorist plot that supposedly had been stopped by this data collection program. Watch the video here.

To understand things, consumers must know what "metadata" is and isn't. There is a good Reuters article describing metadata and the privacy risks:

"... this is data about the data – the identities of the sender and recipient, and the time, date, duration and location of a communication. This information can be extraordinarily sensitive. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study a few years back found that reviewing people’s social networking contacts alone was sufficient to determine their sexual orientation. Consider, metadata from email communications was sufficient to identify the mistress of then-CIA Director David Petraeus and then drive him out of office."

Knowledgeable readers understand that it is not just the government that collects and uses metadata. Companies do it, too. The use (abuse) of metadata is also a privacy concern with social networking websites. The use of metadata was a key factor in the class-action lawsuit against Instagram. Social networking sites love to capture and edit the metadata they collect; especially the descriptive information about photographs and videos uploaded to social networking websites. That's one reason why the EFF mentioned metadata in its Bill of Rights for mobile users.

So, when you hear a pundit, politician, or supposed expert on television claim (or imply) that there are no privacy risks with metadata and it is harmless, you now know better.

Guardian UK Reveals Court Order Allowing NSA To Spy On US Citizens

Thanks to an I've Been Mugged reader for passing along this information.

Yesterday, the Guardian UK newspaper reported about a secret order allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect the telephone records of all Verizon customers in the USA, including calls both inside the USA and calls to locations outside. This broad, daily data collection doesn't target specific people suspect of wrongdoing, but broadly collects data about all U.S. customers of Verizon.

Verizon is one of the largest telecommunications providers in the USA, offering wireline, wireless, Internet access, and many other phone services -- for both consumers and businesses. You can read the full Verizon court order at the Guardian UK website. The data items collected:

• The telelphone numbers of both parties in the phone call
• The duration of the phone call
• The time, date the call was made
• The location of the call (think wireless)
• Any unique identifiers (think IP address, mobile device UDID)

Reportedly, the content of the conversation are supposedly not collected. It is unknown if there are similar court orders for other U.S. telecommunications companies (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, etc.). Sadly, the Obama Administration is defending this data collection. Contact your elected officials today and tell them how you feel about this.

[Update - June 7: the Guarrdian UK reported that the data collection by the NSA also includes direct access to the computer systems of other vendors, notably Faceboo, Google, and Apple.]

Drupal CMS Data Breach

In my consulting business, I work with a variety of content management software (CMS) brands to help companies improve the usability of their websites. So, this news item definitely caught my attention.

Late last month, Drupal.org announced a data breach that may have exposed many users' names, email addresses, and passwords. The Drupal CMS software is popular and used by hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites. The Drupal breach notice read, in part:

"Unauthorized access was made via third-party software installed on the Drupal.org server infrastructure, and was not the result of a vulnerability within Drupal itself. We have worked with the vendor to confirm it is a known vulnerability and has been publicly disclosed. We are still investigating and will share more detail when it is appropriate. Upon discovering the files during a security audit, we shut down the association.drupal.org website to mitigate any possible ongoing security issues related to the files. The Drupal Security Team then began forensic evaluations and discovered that user account information had been accessed via this vulnerability."

The Drupla notice was skimpy. It did not disclose the number of users or passwords affected, nor did it disclose any dates. The notice advised users what to do to keep secure information in their websites using the Drupal CMS, and it described what Drupal has done so that this type of breach does not happen again. CRN summarized very well the situation:

"The Drupal breach is another in a long line of exposed user account data at social networks and other websites. In April, e-commerce startup Living Social revealed a data security breach. The firm reset the passwords of at least 50 million of its users after it found malware on its internal servers. Twitter, Tumblr and Pinterest users were impacted by a data security breach at third-party customer service provider Zendesk."

Schnucks Files Paperwork To Move Class Action Lawsuit To Federal Court

The Madison-St. Clair Record newspaper reported recently that Schunucks had filed legal paperwork to have a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois moved to a Federal court:

"Schnucks late last week filed a notice to remove the suit that Laverne Rippy brought April 25 in St. Clair County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois... The suit, which seeks damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleges that Schnucks failed to timely disclose the security breach to its customers, a violation of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act."

The March 2013 data breach had affected about 2.4 million debit- and credit cardholders in several states. The Illinois Personal Information Protection Act states, in part:

"Sec. 10. Notice of Breach. (a) Any data collector that owns or licenses personal information concerning an Illinois resident shall notify the resident at no charge that there has been a breach of the security of the system data following discovery or notification of the breach. The disclosure notification shall be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity, security, and confidentiality of the data system... (b) Any data collector that maintains or stores, but does not own or license, computerized data that includes personal information that the data collector does not own or license shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the data immediately following discovery, if the personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. In addition to providing such notification to the owner or licensee, the data collector shall cooperate with the owner or licensee in matters relating to the breach... (b-5) The notification to an Illinois resident required by subsection (a) of this Section may be delayed if an appropriate law enforcement agency determines that notification will interfere with a criminal investigation... A violation of this Act constitutes an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act."

Google Glass And Wearable Mobile Devices. Several Privacy Issues Emerge

You have probably heard about Google Glass. It is the first of several wearable mobile devices expected. These devices are integrated into consumer's clothing. In the case of Google Glass, the mobile computing device is integrated, today, into a simple pair of eyeglasses. (in the future, perhaps sunglasses and prescription eyeglasses.) This makes browsing the Web and other tasks truly hands-free, as Google Glass users can blink or wink to control certain product features.

One privacy concern is the right to take videos and photos. Another privacy concern is the right to be notified when you are being recorded. When most people converse with each other, they look directly in each other's eyes. Combined with its hands-free feature, this makes it very easy for Google Glass users to stealthy record others without their knowing it... and without alerting the other person, nor asking for permission. Unlike your smart phone which users must remove from their pocket or purse before taking video/photos, the Google Glass user can begin recording immediately, since the device is already in a position to record video/photos. Unlike traditional cameras, there is no familiar click of the shutter. This pits the rights of people to take photos/video versus the rights of people to control their own image.

People feel strongly on both sides. Some people refer to Google Glass users as "Glassholes." And, technology experts expect many apps will be developed that use the Google Glass device, and other wearable devices. (There's already one porn app for the Google Glass device.) Recognizing the passionate views, Google's position has been to prohibit the facial recognition feature with apps using its Google Glass device. Manufacturers of other devices may not take the same position.

As the New York Times describe in a recent blog post:

"... wearable computing fans, who are starting to sport devices that can record everything going on around them with a wink or subtle click, and the people who promise to confront violently anyone wearing one of these devices...I was startled by how much Glass invades people’s privacy, leaving them two choices: stare at a camera that is constantly staring back at them, or leave the room. This is not just a Google issue. Other gadgets have plenty of privacy-invading potential. Memoto, a tiny, automatic camera that looks like a pin you can wear on a shirt, can snap two photos a minute and later upload it to an online service."

Of course, Apple is developing wearable devices, too. As a recent Forbes Magazie article stated:

"The thing that makes Google Glass one notch weirder and the digital noose one notch tighter for all of us is the loss of the ability to opt in. If you’re in the field of fire, you’re in. There have already been a number of reports of parties where people were asked to remove their Google Glass piece or leave the premises. The Seattle bar 5 Point has banned Google Glass and warned on its Web page, '... ass-kickings will be encouraged for violators.' ”

Hopefully, people and companies will sort through and come to reasonable positions on etiquette. Consider this: is it appropriate to use wearable devices in bathrooms or restrooms? What about doctor's offices? What about at doctor's waiting rooms? Your yoga or pilates class? Or your favorite clothing-optional beach?

Employers will need to adjust, too, especially workplaces where employees access records with confidential or proprietary information. Otherwise, data breaches via wearable devices will result. Places that come to my mind include banks, financial institutions, and cedit recording agencies where employees view and process the sensitive information of other consumers. (Consider people standing behind you in line at an ATM machine, who try to should-surf with wearable devices.) Then, there are locations such as factories and company offices with proprietary company information. Military and contractor ocations with sensitive information are obvious concerns. Many court buildings already ban visitors from using smart phones and digital recording devices.

Today, respectful people ask their friends, family, classmates, and/or coworkers if it's okay to take and post a photo on a social networking site before doing so. Some people are savvy about this; and give permission for the photo to be uploaded, and ask that the person not "tag" the photo posted on Facebook. And, companies will need to adjust their mobile device policies for what employees (and contractors) can or cannot bring into the workplace.

Between consumers -- friends, family, and classmates -- etiquette and rules will need to be quickly established and clarified. Otherwise, distrust and conflict will result quickly.

What's your opinion about Google Glass and other wearable mobile devices?

8 Tips About Cruise Ship Vacations And Cruise Ship Maintenance

After fires this year on board Royal Caribbean cruise line's Grandeur Of the Seas cruise ship and Carnival cruise line's Triumph cruise ship, plus a 2012 fire onboard Costa cruise line's Allegra cruise ship, a reader asked what I thought about the cruise lines and cruise ship maintenance. These events severely interrupted passengers' vacations, and nobody wants to experience a ruined vacation.

This reader knows that my wife and I have completed 20 cruise ship vacations. We have sailed on many cruise lines: Carnival, Celebrity, Costa, Holland America, MSC, Norwegian, Princess, and Royal Caribbean. We have sailed to Alaska, Bermuda, the Caribbean, the Mexican Riviera, the Panama Canal, the Hawaiian Islands, portions of northern South America, and the Mediterranean Sea. My thoughts about cruise ship maintenance are numerous.

First, bad things happen. Bad things happen both at hotels on land, and on cruise ships at sea. It seems that the events regarding cruise ships more often gather news media headlines. Know that land-based hotels have events, too. You may not hear about them.

Second, the cruise lines frequently offer big discounts for unsold cabins on cruise ships; especially as the departure date nears. It's in their interest to keep their ships full because cruise ship staff rely on tips for income. If you get what appears to be a too-good-to-be-true cruise vacation deal, visit the cruise line’s website to learn when that ship was built.

If the cruise line's website does not disclose the year the ship was built, then visit Cruising.org, the official website of the cruise industry operated by Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA). In the left column, select the cruise line and then the specific ship you are considering. While at the website, consumers should also read the CLIA Passenger Bill Of Rights, so you know what to expect and what to demand.

There seems to be a somewhat higher risk with older cruise ships. I define "older" as a ship that was built 14 or more years ago, regardless of whether it has been renovated. The Grandeur Of The Seas was built in 1996. The Carnival Triumph was built in 1999, and renovated in 2008. The Costa Allegra cruise ship was built in 1992 and renovated in 2005. The ships are used heavily since they operate year-round with passengers, and sail during both good and bad weather.

Third, I advise consumers to learn about the ship you plan to sail on. One website I use is Cruise Critic, and specifically the message boards which include unfiltered comments by cruise ship passengers. This is an excellent way to learn about any recent problems on a cruise ship you are considering.

Experienced travelers use Cruise Critic, and I have found the comments informative for a couple reasons. The comments are timely as they are posted by passengers who have recently sailed on a cruise ship. The comments, both good and bad, are accurate because they are posted by experienced travelers. I researched the Grandeur Of the Seas cruise ship on Cruise Critic before we sailed on it from April 24 to May 3. To me, this is the benefit of a social networking website: unfiltered, accurate, and reliable comments. Sadly, the (marketing) websites by the cruise lines won't disclose this information.

So, we were aware of the specific problems (e.g., plumbing, odors) the ship had experienced previously; and that the ship had been renovated. Cruise lines periodically take a cruise ship out of service for a few weeks to fix problems, and to upgrade on-board amenities. So, we were comfortable sailing on the Grandeur OTS.

The Cruise Critic website has some gravitas. When I worked previously at a digital advertising agency, I worked on an account for one of the cruise lines. I can tell you that the cruise line executives definitely read the Cruise Critic website and comments by passengers.

Fourth, ask your travel agent. He or she might know, and suggest a different ship or different cruise line. Many consumers make their reservations directly at a cruise line's website. While this is a huge convenience, experienced travelers do more research first and often use a travel agent.

Fifth, customer service matters. Consumers can use the news reports to learn about how cruise lines respond when things go wrong on a ship at sea. You may or may not feel comfortable with the response. That can guide your choice of ship and cruise line. Again, comments by passengers at the Cruise Critic website will give you an idea of which cruise lines respond better than others.

Royal Caribbean posted the following message on its website:

"Unfortunately, the damage caused by the fire on Grandeur of the Seas will require us to cancel the rest of the current sailing. We are currently working on making the necessary arrangements to return all guests to Baltimore, Maryland, tomorrow... Unfortunately, due to the time needed to repair the damage caused by the fire, it is necessary to cancel Grandeur of the Seas’ next voyage, which was scheduled to depart Baltimore, Maryland, on Friday, May 31."

Royal Caribbean announced on its Facebook page:

"The May 31st sailing of Granduer of the Seas has been cancelled. All booked guests will receive a full refund of the cruise fare as well as a 50% future cruise certificate. We will provide an update regarding future sailings on Grandeur of the Seas by the end of this week."

Is this customer service response sufficient? That only you can decide for yourself. In my opinion, it is sufficient and makes the best of interrupted vacation plans.

Sixth, buy travel insurance. Most cruise lines offer this and it is available through independent insurance carriers such as Travel Guard. Travel insurance covers a lot of things, including but not limited to lost luggage and interrupted travel. The price varies, based on the total cost of your trip. When I travel, I always buy travel insurance. Peace of mind is important to me. And, the insurance might cover items the cruise lines don't. For example, when Costa cruise line's Concordia cruise ship sank in the Mediterranean, some passengers died but most who lost luggage had to buy replacement clothes and personal items. Travel insurance would usually cover this.

Seventh, it may be helpful to know that Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian are largely entry-level cruise lines -- the cruise lines first-time travelers typically sail on. Just like land-based hotels, there are different tiers of cruise lines. You might consider one of the mid-range cruise lines: Celebrity, Princess, or Holland America.

Eighth, when researching your cruise ship vacation look for unfiltered reviews of cruise ships. There are many websites with cruise reviews, but many filter their reviews. While I like Cruise Critic, you may also like Cruise Addicts. Whatever you do, find a website with unfiltered reviews submitted by experienced passengers.