=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 11.07 April 8, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.07.html
======================================================================
Table of Contents
======================================================================
[1] Homeland Security Dept. Expands Visitor Tracking System
[2] European Parliament Slams EU-US Agreement on Passenger Data
[3] EPIC Comments on Short Notices, Spam, Biometrics
[4] Canadian Court OKs Peer-to-Peer Sharing
[5] Bill Criminalizing Inaccurate Domain Info Advances In House
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Overruling Democracy
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
======================================================================
[1] Homeland Security Dept. Expands Visitor Tracking System
======================================================================
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that it will
fingerprint and photograph travelers entering the United States
through the Visa Waiver Program beginning September 30, 2004. The
announcement marks an expansion of the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT), a massive
government-wide program that tracks the entry and exit of visitors to
the United States. The expansion will affect an estimated 13 million
citizens from 27 nations -- including Japan, Australia, and many
European countries -- who until now have been permitted to visit the
United States for up to 90 days without a visa.
US-VISIT uses more than twenty existing government information systems
to collect biographic and biometric information about visitors to the
United States, as well as control the pre-entry, entry, status, and
exit of those travelers. Since US-VISIT's launch in January,
non-immigrant visa holders have been subject to photographing and
fingerprinting, but other travelers, such as those entering the United
States through the Visa Waiver Program and many Mexican and Canadian
visitors, have been exempted. The system has been implemented
unilaterally and without regard for international privacy standards
that bear upon the the United States' collection and use of personal
information on non-U.S. citizens. The federal Privacy Act protects
only the records of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
US-VISIT has already provoked indignation from other countries. In
January, a Brazilian judge rebuked the United States for presuming to
impose fingerprinting and photographing requirements on the rest of
the world, and ordered that American citizens entering Brazil undergo
the same procedures. Last month, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
declared that the United States' fingerprinting of Chinese visitors is
discriminatory and violates basic human rights of China's citizens.
EPIC's comments in response to the Department of Homeland Security's
announced implementation of US-VISIT:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visit/us-visit_comments.pdf
EPIC's amicus brief in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of
Nevada, discussing US-VISIT:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/epic_amicus.pdf
For more information about US-VISIT, see EPIC's US-VISIT Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visit/
======================================================================
[2] European Parliament Slams EU-US Agreement on Passenger Data
======================================================================
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution criticizing the draft
EU-U.S. agreement on the disclosure of passenger name records to the
U.S. In calling for the withdrawal of the agreement, Parliament
Members have urged the European Commission, the executive body of the
EU, to come up with a new international agreement that offers genuine
privacy guarantees for air passengers. Pending conclusion of this new
agreement, the EP's resolution calls upon European countries
immediately to comply with European and domestic data protection laws.
The Parliament may also bring an action before the European Court of
Justice to determine whether the passenger record agreement violates
European privacy laws. This would happen if the Commission approved
the agreement without taking the Parliament's opinion into account.
The Court might be asked to consider whether the agreement upholds the
right to privacy as set out in the European Convention on Human
Rights. The Court would also have to determine whether the agreement
should be submitted to the Parliament for a binding, rather than
consultative, vote.
A Parliamentary committee has rejected a proposal that the Spanish
government put forward that would require airlines operating within
Europe to provide passenger data to governments in the EU country of
arrival. The Parliament will vote on the proposal later this month.
For more information, see EPIC's EU/U.S. Passenger Data Disclosure
Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html
======================================================================
[3] EPIC Comments on Short Notices, Spam, Biometrics
======================================================================
EPIC filed comments in three areas where federal agencies are
considering policies relevant to the protection of privacy. In the
first, EPIC filed comments with the Department of the Treasury in
opposition to adoption of biometric identifiers to combat identity
theft. The EPIC comments noted that identity theft is exacerbated by
lax credit grantors, and noted many examples where credit was issued
to individuals who provided obviously incorrect personal information
and to instances where credit card companies open accounts to
household pets. EPIC commented that less invasive alternatives, such
as requiring credit grantors to exercise more caution or assume
liability for victims' total losses for identity theft, would be more
effective than widespread deployment of biometric systems.
In comments to the Federal Trade Commission, EPIC supported the
creation of a Do Not E-mail Registry to prevent spam. This registry
should support enrollment at the domain-level, so that individuals can
enjoy whatever benefit it confers without revealing actual e-mail
addresses. EPIC also recounted anti-spam principles endorsed by a
coalition of privacy groups, which urged regulators to adopt a clear
definition of spam as unsolicited, bulk, commercial email; to
establish opt-in protections, to establish private rights of action
for individuals; to enable technical solutions for spam; to support
international anti-spam cooperation; and to oppose preemption of state
efforts to curb spam. The comments will be considered by the FTC as
the agency drafts a report to Congress with recommendations on whether
to create an anti-spam registry.
Finally, in comments to the agencies that administer financial
services privacy standards, EPIC supported the creation of short
privacy notices. Such notices, if designed properly, will assist
individuals in understanding their rights and opt-out methods. The
EPIC comments supported the creation of notices that start with a
"call to action," an unambiguous statement that the individual must
take affirmative action in order to protect their financial privacy.
EPIC also commented that a checkbox format for the notices would be
favorable, as that would allow individuals to score or compare privacy
policies across different companies.
EPIC Comments on Biometrics and Identity Theft:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/biometrics/factabiometrics.html
EPIC Comments on the Do Not E-mail Spam Registry:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/spam/dne.html
EPIC Comments on Short Financial Privacy Notices:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/glba/shortnotice.html
======================================================================
[4] Canadian Court OKs Peer-to-Peer Sharing
======================================================================
In a landmark decision, a Canadian judge has ruled that sharing music
through a peer-to-peer service over the Internet is legal under
Canadian copyright law. The case arose in February when the Canadian
Recording Industry Association requested that the court order several
Internet service providers to turn over the identities of 29 "John and
Jane Doe" subscribers accused of copyright infringement for making
songs available for download. Former EPIC law clerks Alex Cameron and
Jason Young provided support for the Does on behalf of the Canadian
Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which was granted
intervenor status in the case along with Electronic Frontier Canada.
In a 28-page opinion, Justice Konrad von Finckenstein determined that
the recording association did not present legally adequate proof of
copyright infringement by any of the 29 Does, and failed to show a
causal link between the alleged file sharers' usernames and specific
Internet Protocol addresses. Given the lack of evidence, Justice von
Finckenstein concluded, it would be "irresponsible" to order the
disclosure of the Does' identities.
Furthermore, Justice von Finckenstein found no proof that the file
sharers had actually distributed music files: "The mere fact of
placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can
be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before
it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner
of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising
that they are available for copying." He further explained, "I cannot
see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy
machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user
that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P
service."
In the United States, the Recording Industry Association of America
has filed hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who share music
over the Internet. In December, the United States Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit ruled against the recording industry's attempts to
compel Verizon to identify its subscribers.
The decision in BMG Canada v. John Doe is available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/copyright/2004FC488.pdf
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic:
http://www.cippic.ca/
For more information about file sharing litigation in the United
States, see EPIC's Verizon v. RIAA Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/copyright/verizon/
======================================================================
[5] Bill Criminalizing Inaccurate Domain Info Advances In House
======================================================================
The House Judiciary Committee is poised to consider H.R. 3754, the
Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act. This bill would make it a
crime to provide inaccurate information to a domain name registry if
the web site is found to infringe on a copyright. Introduced in
February by Representatives Lamar Smith and Howard Berman, the bill
was voted out of the Subcommittee and now awaits full Judiciary
Committee consideration.
This is the most recent effort in a long line of legislative
initiatives by the House Judiciary to criminalize or stiffen penalties
for activity deemed to be a threat to copyright ownership. The
Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act would make the provision of
"material and misleading false contact information to a domain name
registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration
authority" a new federal crime, punishable by up to seven years in
federal prison.
The WHOIS database is a public directory available and searchable
online that is comprised of such personal information as name,
address, and phone numbers of the domain registrant. Originally
constructed to enable contact of site administrators for technical
purposes, the WHOIS database is now heavily used by intellectual
property lawyers and law enforcement to track down domain name
holders. The Subcommittee held three hearings between 2001 and 2003
on the issue of accuracy of the WHOIS database, taking testimony from
the industry and law enforcement. However, no privacy rights
advocates were allowed the opportunity to provide a perspective on
this issue. In the most recent hearing on February 4, 2004, the
Committee heard from only intellectual property lawyers and trademark
organization representatives.
Privacy experts warn that the availability of personal information in
WHOIS makes registrants vulnerable to those interested in spamming,
political reprisals, acts of identity theft, and even stalking. It
also has a "chilling affect" on the free speech rights of registrants
wishing to speak out about human rights concerns, but may fear some
form of punishment. Many people protect themselves by registering for
domain names with inaccurate data.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the
organization that administers the Internet and currently has
jurisdiction over WHOIS policies, has established three task forces to
analyze and make recommendations addressing the accessibility of
information, the extent of information required, and accuracy the
WHOIS data. At a recent ICANN meeting, a representative from the
European Commission provided an international legal perspective on the
WHOIS issue. He suggested that accuracy requirements for WHOIS
database, as a public directory of personal information may violate
international data protection laws. There is growing recognition that
anonymous entries are a right of the registrant.
The text of H.R. 3754, the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.3754:
Article 29 Working Paper on WHOIS:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/whois_paper.html
For more information about the WHOIS database, see EPIC's WHOIS Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/whois/
======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
======================================================================
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS WITHHOLDING OF DEATH SCENE PHOTOS
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the government could withhold
autopsy photographs under the Freedom of Information Act to protect
the privacy of a decedent's loved ones from further inquiry into the
death. The case, National Archives & Records Administration v.
Favish, arose when Allan Favish requested and was denied access to the
crime scene photographs of Vince Foster, former deputy counsel under
President Clinton, who was found dead in a public park. Favish
doubted five separate government investigations that had concluded
that Foster's death had been a suicide and sought the photographs to
substantiate his suspicions. Through his suit, Favish gained access
to some, but not all, of the photographs. The Court accepted the case
to decide whether the government had to release the most graphic of
the photographs, the photographs most important to Favish. The Court
concluded that the personal privacy exemption under the Freedom of
Information Act protected Foster's family's privacy and that these
privacy interests outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the
crime scene photographs absent proof put forth by a requester "that
would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged
Government impropriety might have occurred." Justice Kennedy wrote
the opinion for the Court.
The opinion in National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish is
available at:
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foia/02-954.pdf
For more information about the Freedom of Information Act, see EPIC's
FOIA Gallery:
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foiagallery.html
COALITION URGES SUSPENSION OF GOOGLE E-MAIL SCANNING
EPIC and a coalition of 27 consumer and privacy groups have called
upon Google to suspend its plans to deploy Gmail, a webmail system
that will scan users' communications in order to target
advertisements. Targeting advertisements based on individuals'
discussions is an unprecedented invasion into the privacy of
communications. Furthermore, the system retains communications for an
extended period of time, causing users to have less privacy protection
in their communications because e-mail stored over 180 days is
subjected to lower protections under wiretapping laws.
Coalition Letter Urging Suspension of Gmail:
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm
CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS CAMPAIGN AGAINST BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION
EPIC and a coalition of civil liberties organizations from a wide
range of countries have sent a letter to the International Civil
Aviation Organization regarding its plans to include biometric
identifiers such as fingerprints and facial scans on all newly issued
electronic passports. ICAO met recently in Cairo to move forward on
the implementation of international standards that will require the
use of biometrics and radio frequency identification technology in all
future passports. The organization is working quickly with little
public outreach or consultation with privacy experts. The letter,
organized by Privacy International, was sent to ICAO to provide such
expertise. The letter states that the biometric standard being adopted
is "fundamentally flawed" and will result in a substantial number of
passengers being falsely identified as potential terrorists or wrongly
accused of holding fraudulent passports. The letter warns this plan
will actually lead to the first truly global database of biometric
information. Based on projections from current passport and travel
statistics, biometric details of more than a billion people will be
electronically stored by 2015. The groups believe ICAO could create
"unprecedented" security threats due to potential access by terrorists
and organized crime.
Read the letter to ICAO:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/pi_letter.html
For more information on identification requirements for travel, see
EPIC's Air Travel Privacy Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/
For more information on biometric identification, see EPIC's
Biometrics Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/biometrics/
APPEALS COURT DENIES JUSTICE DEPT. DEMAND FOR MEDICAL RECORDS
In the latest development in the Department of Justice's efforts to
obtain abortion records, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has rejected the agency's demand for abortion records
from Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, explaining the
disclosure of the records would violate the privacy of women who had
abortions there. The Justice Department is seeking the records as
part of its defense in a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality
of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Federal courts in Manhattan,
San Francisco, and Nebraska are currently considering challenges to
the constitutionality of the law.
For more information about the Justice Department's efforts to obtain
medical records, see EPIC's Medical Privacy Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical/
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA LAUNCHES FINANCIAL PRIVACY CAMPAIGN
The Consumer Federation of California has launched a series of mock
advertisements highlighting the information sharing practices of
financial services companies. The mock advertisements are part of a
campaign that the organization is running to raise awareness of
privacy problems, and to communicate the public's dissatisfaction with
weak financial privacy laws.
Consumer Federation of California's "Privacy Revolt" Ads:
http://www.consumerfedofca.org/040104_ad1.html
EPIC WEB SITE WINS PC MAGAZINE TOP 100 AWARD
PC Magazine has named EPIC's web site one of its 100 Classics, or "the
top sites on the Web," in the category of Current Events and News You
Can Use. PC Magazine took special note of a graphic on EPIC's site:
"Taking a shot at the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC spoofs the
color-coded terror threat scale by recasting it as a 'Privacy Threat
Index.'"
Top 100 Classics, PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1555399,00.asp
======================================================================
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Overruling Democracy
======================================================================
Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People, by
Jamin B. Raskin (Routledge 2003).
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0415934397-4
After the 2000 presidential election few would think that we would
need a book to understand how the presidential election was decided.
However, according to Jamin B. Raskin, the historic and unprecedented
ruling, which decided the outcome of that year's presidential
election, was not an isolated case. The Supreme Court left one
critical question in doubt: "do we as citizens of the United States
have the right to vote for the President and Vice President? "
According to Raskin's book, Overruling Democracy, The Supreme Court
vs. The American People, the majority of the Supreme Court does not
think that right belongs to us.
In reading this book some may be put off by the liberal perspective,
but read on: what it contains is too important to dismiss. It may be
a surprise to learn the case law created by prior Supreme Court
decisions hinted at a disturbing trend regarding the majority view of
constitutional voting rights conferred to citizens, long before they
ever heard the arguments posed by Bush vs. Gore. Democracy -- at
least the version of democracy envisioned by most citizens of the
United States -- includes a few basics, which include the right to
vote, free speech, and freedom of religion, just to name a few. Over
the course of American history we have faced challenges to these basic
freedoms and the people of this nation have been up to the task of
defending their constitutional perspective of American democracy. At
the turn of the last century it was the "Good Government Leagues" and
their grassroots efforts to reform local and state government by
removing patronage and ending machine politics that won the day. Those
efforts started on the local and state level, then quickly found their
way into federal laws that protect civil servants from patronage
pressures and insured unbiased access to public services provided to
our nation's citizens.
Jamin Raskin's call for a new democratic political reform movement may
be right on time, considering the debate swirling on the adoption of
new electronic voting technology, corporate influence on media, and
threatened changes in campaign free speech rules by the Federal
Election Commission (which may impede or mute the rights of third
parties and activists to be heard) makes this election season
controversial. Is it time to reinvigorate and reassert the power of
the people to set the course of this nation's democratic institutions
and seriously consider Professor Raskin's suggestion that we codify by
Constitutional amendment the right of citizens to vote for the
President and Vice President of the United States?
Citizen-inspired movements of the past were never about power for its
own sake, but rather the ability of citizens to control the process
for electing representatives to fill positions of public office and
making that representation accountable to the people they serve. I
would call this the "We the people" clause of our nation's
Constitution that allows popular movements designed to correct the
course of government and the institutions, when they stray away from
popular rule. This is the only way our nation stays the course of
democracy that allows popular elected government to thrive in the
United States. There are no rules of American self-government that
say just because the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive
branches of our government think that life in the United States should
be a certain way, that the people cannot let them know that they are
wrong.
Three cheers for Jamin Raskin and let the work to reclaim our nation's
democracy already begun by many activist and grassroots organizations
continue.
-- Lillie Coney
================================
EPIC Publications:
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, International
Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2003/
The "Physicians Desk Reference of the privacy world." An invaluable
resource for students, attorneys, researchers and journalists who need
an up-to-date collection of U.S. and International privacy law, as
well as a comprehensive listing of privacy resources.
================================
"FOIA 2002: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Mark Zaid, editors (EPIC 2002). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2002/
This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of the
Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the
Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 21st
edition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalists and
researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. For those who
litigate open government cases (or need to learn how to litigate
them), this is an essential reference manual.
================================
"Privacy & Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2002). Price: $35.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2003/
This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state of
privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. The survey
examines a wide range of privacy issues including data protection,
passenger profiling, genetic databases, video surveillance, ID systems
and freedom of information laws.
================================
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content
Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0/
A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content
filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering
threatens free expression.
================================
"The Consumer Law Sourcebook 2000: Electronic Commerce and the Global
Economy," Sarah Andrews, editor (EPIC 2000). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/cls/
The Consumer Law Sourcebook provides a basic set of materials for
consumers, policy makers, practitioners and researchers who are
interested in the emerging field of electronic commerce. The focus is
on framework legislation that articulates basic rights for consumers
and the basic responsibilities for businesses in the online economy.
================================
"Cryptography and Liberty 2000: An International Survey of Encryption
Policy," Wayne Madsen and David Banisar, authors (EPIC 2000). Price:
$20. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/crypto00&/
EPIC's third survey of encryption policies around the world. The
results indicate that the efforts to reduce export controls on strong
encryption products have largely succeeded, although several
governments are gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats of
encryption to law enforcement.
================================
EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free
expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at:
EPIC Bookstore
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/
"EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books
http://www.powells.com/features/epic/epic.html
======================================================================
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
======================================================================
Debate on Domestic Spying with EPIC's Marc Rotenberg and Former Deputy
Attorney General Victoria Toensing. Justice Talking. April 12, 2004.
For more information: http://www.justicetalking.org.
International Workshop on Inverse Surveillance: Camphones, Cyborglogs,
and Computational Seeing Aids. April 12, 2004. Toronto, Canada.
Email hilab at eyetap.org.
Workshop: Monitoring Software on Your PC: Spyware, Adware, and Other
Software. Federal Trade Commission. April 19, 2004. Washington, DC.
For more information: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/spyware.htm.
CFP2004: 14th Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). April 20-23, 2004.
Berkeley, CA. For more information: http://www.cfp2004.org.
29th Annual AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. April 22-23,
2004. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/colloqu.htm.
Innovation Law and Policy Colloquium. Bell University Laboratories
Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, University of Toronto. April
28, 2004. Toronto, Canada. Email rsvp.bul at utoronto.ca.
Fourth Annual Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit. Future of
Music Coalition. May 2-3, 2004. Washington, DC. For more
information: http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit04/.
2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society
Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, in cooperation with the
International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR). May 9-12,
2004. Oakland, CA. For more information:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/oakland04-cfp.html.
International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in a Global
Society. Wessex Institute. May 11-13, 2004. Skiathos, Greece. For
more information:
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2004/datasecurity04/index.html.
Global ICT Summit 2004: From Adversity to Success? The World's Best
e-Content & e-Creativity Experience. World Summit Award, Global
Alliance for Bridging the Digital Divide, World Wide Web Consortium
Hong Kong, Internet Professionals Association, Hong Kong Cyberport,
and Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. May 11-14, 2004. Hong
Kong. For more information:
http://www.esdlife.com/campaign/Global-ICT.
Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security.
University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center. May 13-14, 2004.
Minneapolis, MN. For more information:
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/weis2004.
Critical Infrastructure Information: Conference on the Issues.
American University. May 14-16, 2004. Washington, DC. Email
simpson at american.edu.
Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. University of Toronto.
May 26-28, 2004. Toronto, Canada. For more information:
http://petworkshop.org/2004.
RSA Conference 2004. RSA Security. May 31-June 1, 2004. Tokyo,
Japan. For more information:
http://www.medialive.jp/events/rsa2004/eng/default.html.
Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: New Developments & Compliance
Issues in a Security-Conscious World. Practising Law Institute. June
7-8, 2004. San Francisco, CA. For more information:
http://www.pli.edu.
TRUSTe Symposium: Privacy Futures. June 9-11, 2004. International
Association of Privacy Professionals. San Francisco, CA. For more
information: http://www.privacyfutures.org.
Access & Privacy Conference 2004: Sorting It Out. Government Studies,
Faculty of Extension. June 10-11, 2004. University of Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. For more information:
http://www.govsource.net/programs/iapp/conference/main.nclk.
13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: The
Power of People & Technology. June 11-13, 2004. Seattle, Washington.
For more information: http://www2.ctcnet.org/conf/2004/session.asp.
Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: New Developments & Compliance
Issues in a Security-Conscious World. Practising Law Institute. June
21-22, 2004. New York, NY. For more information: http://www.pli.edu.
PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, and
Content-Distribution Systems. PORTIA Project. July 8-9, 2004.
Stanford, CA. For more information:
http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/workshop.html.
O'Reilly Open Source Convention. July 26-30, 2004. Portland, OR. For
more information: http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon.
First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam. American Association for
Artificial Intelligence and IEEE Technical Committee on Security and
Privacy. July 30-31, 2004. Mountain View, CA. For more information:
http://www.ceas.cc.
Crypto 2004: The Twenty-Fourth Annual IACR Crypto Conference.
International Association for Cryptologic Research, IEEE Computer
Society Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the Computer
Science Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara, CA. August 15-19, 2004. For more information:
http://www.iacr.org/conferences/crypto2004.
The Right to Personal Data Protection -- the Right to Dignity. 26th
International Conference on Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.
September 14-16, 2004. Wroclaw, Poland. For more information:
http://www.giodo.gov.pl/252/j/en/.
2004 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. National Center
for Technology & Law, George Mason University School of Law. October
1-3, 2004. Arlington, VA. For more information:
http://www.tprc.org/TPRC04/call04.htm.
======================================================================
Subscription Information
======================================================================
Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:
https://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/epic_news
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
======================================================================
Privacy Policy
======================================================================
The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to
send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our
mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal
process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link
to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under
"subscription information."
======================================================================
About EPIC
======================================================================
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest
research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to
focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper
Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical
record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.
EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act
litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see
http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite
200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248
(fax).
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully
tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718
Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can
contribute online at:
http://www.epic.org/donate/
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and
First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the
right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of
encryption and expanding wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
---------------------- END EPIC Alert 11.07 ----------------------
.