=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 11.18 September 24, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.18.html
======================================================================
Table of Contents
======================================================================
[1] Poland Conference Examines Privacy in a New Era
[2] Gov't Details Secure Flight; Documents Show CAPPS II Mission Creep
[3] Wireless Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate
[4] EPIC Challenges Dismissal of Privacy Claim Against Northwest
[5] EPIC Testifies on Voting and Privacy
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
======================================================================
[1] Poland Conference Examines Privacy in a New Era
======================================================================
The Public Voice hosted "Privacy in a New Era: Challenges,
Opportunities, and Partnerships" on September 13 in Wroclaw, Poland.
The conference provided an opportunity for civil society leaders and
academic experts to meet with European data protection authorities and
explore emerging challenges to the protection of personal privacy. The
conference was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the
International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. The event was
organized by EPIC, Privacy International, and the European Digital
Rights Initiative.
Conference participants came from fifteen countries, seven of which
are New European Union Member States. Several privacy commissioners
participated in the conference, including Peter Hustinx, European Data
Protection Supervisor; Dr. Ewa Kulesza, Inspector General for Personal
Data Protection in Poland; Karel Neuwirt, Data Protection Commissioner
for the Czech Republic; Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner for
Canada; David Loukidales, Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia,
Canada; Raymond Tang, Privacy Commissioner for Hong Kong; and Frank
Work, Information and Privacy Commissioner for Alberta, Canada.
Karel Neuwirt, Data Protection Commissioner for the Czech Republic,
spoke about the development of privacy protection, the relevant
international instruments, and the establishment of the data
protection authority in the Czech Republic. Mr. Neuwirt emphasized
the educative role of his office. "Education is an effective tool of
enforcement for data protection principles," he said.
Gus Hosein of Privacy International discussed the relationship between
civil society groups and data protection authorities. Hosein pointed
to several successful collaborations as well as important efforts that
data protection authorities have taken to safeguard privacy, and
recommended that civil society organizations acknowledge these
efforts. At the same time, he said, data protection authorities must
pursue more campaigns to maintain public support.
Professor Arwid Mednis of the University of Wroclaw explored the legal
basis of the right to privacy, with a particular emphasis on the
development of privacy standards within the Council of Europe and the
European Union. Professor Mednis looked in particular at recent
developments in privacy law and some of the new challenges resulting
from efforts to combat computer crime and to fight terrorism.
Bogdan Manolea described how he established the Association for the
Best Use of Electronic Services (ABUSE), the first association of
information service providers in Romania. He examined the roots of
privacy and the current threats to privacy, including the
establishment of the Integrated Informational System, a centralized
database which may become the electronic arm of the Romanian
Intelligence Service. Manolea suggested several strategies for
effective privacy protection, including the creation of an independent
privacy office, awareness campaigns, and concrete programs in
cooperation with civil society organizations.
Ivan Székely of the Open Society Archives at Central European
University in Hungary candidly assessed the work of civil society
groups in the data protection field. He discussed the need to
distinguish real civil society organizations from front groups, as
well as the complimentary roles of expert privacy groups and radical
privacy groups. He made recommendations about how to develop
effective public education campaigns, including the need to develop
phrases and themes that speak to a broad public.
Conference web site:
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/wroclaw04
The Public Voice:
http://www.thepublicvoice.org
Privacy International:
http://www.privacyinternational.org
European Digital Rights Initiative:
http://www.edri.org
======================================================================
[2] Gov't Details Secure Flight; Documents Show CAPPS II Mission Creep
======================================================================
The Transportation Security Administration has released more
information about Secure Flight, the government's new passenger
prescreening initiative which is being developed to replace the
controversial second generation Computer Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System (CAPPS II). CAPPS II was dropped just months ago
due to unresolvable concerns about the program's effectiveness and
implications for individual privacy.
As described by the TSA, Secure Flight will compare Passenger Name
Records (PNRs) against information compiled by the Terrorist Screening
Center, which will include expanded "selectee" and "no fly" lists. TSA
will also seek to identify "suspicious indicators associated with
travel behavior" in passengers' itinerary PNR data. Furthermore, the
agency is planning to test the use of commercial databases to verify
the accuracy of information provided by travelers. TSA will
administer the program, removing all passenger screening
responsibility from the airlines. The agency has issued a proposed
order that directs airlines to turn over passenger records from June
2004 so that Secure Flight can be tested this fall.
Like its predecessor, Secure Flight has been exempted from crucial
provisions of the Privacy Act, which will severely limit the rights
individuals typically would have in the personal information the
government maintains about them. For instance, Secure Flight may
collect and use personal information irrelevant and unnecessary for
aviation security. Furthermore, passengers will have no judicially
enforceable rights to access and correct the personal information
maintained about them for the program.
TSA assures the public, however, that "upon completion of the testing
phase, and before Secure Flight is operational, TSA will establish
comprehensive passenger redress procedures and personal data and civil
liberties protections for the Secure Flight program." No details
about these protections are available, nor information about how long
TSA will keep PNR data that it collects for Secure Flight, even though
the agency intends to launch the program early next year.
In related news, EPIC's Freedom of Information Act litigation with the
TSA has revealed three heavily redacted draft privacy impact
assessments the agency performed last year for CAPPS II. The drafts,
dated April 17, 2003, July 29, 2003, and July 30 2003, reflect a
dramatic expansion over just three and a half months in the ways
passenger information collected for the program would have been shared.
Privacy Act notice for Secure Flight:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/sf_sorn__9.21.04.pdf
Secure Flight privacy impact assessment:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/sf_pia__9.21.04.pdf
Proposed order directing airlines to turn over June 2004 passenger
records:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/sf_pra_9.21.04.pdf
Privacy impact assessments obtained through the FOIA showing CAPPS II
mission creep:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/4-17-03.pdf
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/7-29-03.pdf
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/7-30-03.pdf
======================================================================
[3] Wireless Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate
======================================================================
The Senate Commerce Committee has approved S. 1963, the Wireless 411
Privacy Act. Authored by Senators Specter (R-PA) and Boxer (D-CA),
the legislation would require wireless carriers to obtain consent
before listing current subscribers a wireless directory, but new
subscribers could be listed on an opt-out basis. The bill prohibits
charging for listing or for revoking a listing. Representatives Pitts
(R-PA) and Markey (D-MA) have introduced companion legislation in the
House as H.R. 3558.
Earlier in the week, EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg testified
before the Committee on the need to create privacy protections for a
wireless phone number directory being created by Qsent for wireless
providers, AT&T, Sprint, Cingular, T-Mobile, Nextel, and ALLTEL. While
giving individuals a convenient way to find wireless phone numbers,
such a directory may subject users to unwanted telemarketing, spam,
viruses, junk faxes, and harassing calls.
EPIC made the case that opt-in and other legislative protections are
needed because many profitable and reputable companies have promised
strong privacy safeguards only to renege with the adoption of new
business models. Furthermore, although the wireless industry's trade
group, CTIA, has promised that the system will be opt-in, their
representations are illusory because the carriers themselves will set
the privacy practices for the wireless directory. Carriers would be
free to adopt opt-out standards, and thus far, the participating
carriers have been reticent and were unwilling to testify before the
Committee.
Not so with Verizon Wireless. In its testimony, the company strongly
opposed the creation of a wireless directory, calling it a "dumb idea"
and claiming that opt-in is not enough to protect subscribers' privacy
rights. It pledged not to participate in the wireless directory,
noting that those who wish to be listed can do so free online, and for
a small charge in print directories.
Qsent, the company tasked to architect the wireless directory,
testified that consumers will get to choose to be listed, but stopped
short of using the term "opt-in." The company claimed that wireless
numbers will only be distributed to those who call "411," and that it
will never appear in print or electronic form, nor will it be
available on the Internet. The company also promised security
safeguards for the wireless directory. However, it is unclear what
recourse exists if there is accidental disclosure or security breach.
In the wireline context, the disclosure of an unpublished or unlisted
number usually results in the carrier issuing a new phone number to
affected subscribers. It is unclear whether wireless users will enjoy
that benefit.
California is on the cusp of creating the strongest protections for
wireless directory information. California AB 1733 creates opt-in
requirements for wireless directory listing and for the sale of
wireless telephone numbers. Individuals can revoke their consent to
listing at any time, and carriers could not charge consumers for
listing or for revoking a listing. AB 1733 also allows individuals to
bring suit against those who deliberately violate the protections. The
bill passed the Senate and Assembly and is awaiting Governor
Schwarzenegger's signature.
EPIC testimony on Wireless Directory Privacy:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wireless/dirtest_904.html
Wireless 411 Privacy Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.1963:
California AB 1733:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/ab1733.html
======================================================================
[4] EPIC Challenges Dismissal of Privacy Claim Against Northwest
======================================================================
In a petition for review filed this week, EPIC urged the Department of
Transportation to reverse its recent decision that Northwest Airlines
did not break the law when it disclosed millions of passenger records
to NASA. EPIC charged that Northwest Airlines commited an unfair and
deceptive trade practice by giving passengers' personal information to
the agency in direct violation of its privacy policy.
EPIC's petition argued that Northwest's Internet privacy policy
assured its customers that their sensitive personal information would
remain protected unless the airline had a legal obligation to share
the data with the government. The policy promised customers: "As a
User of nwa.com Reservations you are in complete control of your
travel planning needs. This includes controlling the use of
information you provide to Northwest Airlines, its airline affiliates,
and WorldPerks partners." According to EPIC's appeal, Northwest
violated that agreement when it voluntarily released passenger records
to NASA for use in a now-defunct data mining study.
In an order dated September 10, the Department of Transportation
initially dismissed the complaint. The Department, which has publicly
stated that it "encourages self-regulation as the least intrusive and
most efficient means of ensuring the privacy of information provided
by consumers to airlines," proclaimed that in this case "Northwest has
not violated its privacy policy, and . . . if it did, such a violation
does not warrant the initiation of enforcement proceedings."
In its petition filed September 20, EPIC asserted that that the
government blatantly ignored the established test for deceptive trade
practices in declining to find that Northwest violated its privacy
policy. The petition asks the Department to reverse its dismissal,
apply the proper legal standard to the Northwest violation, and
enforce the airline's privacy policy.
EPIC's petition for review of the Department of Transportation's
order:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa/nwa_petition.pdf
The Department of Transportation's order dismissing EPIC's complaint
against Northwest:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa/dot_order.pdf
For more information, see EPIC's Northwest disclosure page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa
======================================================================
[5] EPIC Testifies on Voting and Privacy
======================================================================
EPIC Senior Policy Analyst Lillie Coney testified before the Election
Assistance Commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee on
September 22 on the importance of voter privacy. Coney noted that the
delicate balance between the state's right to ensure that intimidation
and election fraud are not present in public elections and the voter's
right to privacy have resulted in the development of the secret ballot
and restricted zones around voting compartments. Because of the
documented history of voter intimidation, coercion, and fraud
associated with third party knowledge of how individual voters cast
their ballots, it is important not to underestimate the importance of
voter privacy. However, attempts to address fraud have led to voter
intimidation and stringent measures to screen out illegal voters,
which result in legitimate voters being denied their right to vote.
Coney noted that elections systems rely on voluntary participation of
poll workers and voters. The major challenge of election systems is
to create ease of use in a process that is done very infrequently. At
most the greatest voter participation is seen during presidential
election years, which occur once every four years. Recent reports of
poll workers struggling to deal with malfunctioning voting technology
is not new to paperless DRE voting machines. In the Florida 2000
presidential election poll workers did not take malfunctioning
punchcard voting machines out of service. It was reported that 20
[punchcard voting] machines in two Miami-Dade County precincts with
the highest rate of discarded punchcard ballots did not show votes for
at least some candidates during a test-vote minutes before polls
opened on November 7.
Poll workers provide the human judgment used in a gatekeeper function
to determine who may vote in public elections. There is very little
if any due process accorded to voters who are judged to be invalid.
Unfortunately, the experience for voters who are in the "out group" --
minorities, new citizens, language minorities, and disabled voters --
are most at risk of being disenfranchised. Those voters not
identified with by poll workers often find the hurdles to voting are
much higher and problematic. For example, in the State of Florida
voters erroneously included on a list of felons, who are prevented by
state law to vote, were predominately minority.
The subjective nature of the polling operation meant that some poll
workers were able to recognize the errors on the list and allowed
voters to vote, while others could or would not allow these
individuals to vote. As little as possible should rely upon the
subjective judgment of poll workers, as gatekeepers to the ballot box,
but the focus should be on facilitating participation in the election
process.
According to the CalTech MIT Study "Voting: What Is What Could Be,"
between 4 and 6 million votes were lost in the 2000 election. The
study attributed the loss to problems with voter registration or
polling place practices and problems with ballots. In response to
this situation, the Help America Vote Act became law. This
legislation made it a priority to making voting more accessible for
all voters, especially those with disabilities or who were language
minorities. Although the law requires only one accessible voting
machine per polling location, many states have interpreted that to
mean touchscreen direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines and
have adopted the technology universally for all voters and voting
locations used on Election Day.
The greatest privacy benefits of DRE voting machines accrue to those
who are visually disabled, language minorities, or have literacy
challenges. Critics of paperless DRE voting technology acknowledge
the apparent usability benefits to some voters, but point to a
critical vulnerability in their design. Another privacy concern is
presented by the implementation of the voter interface, which on some
machines is done at nearly a 75-80-degree angle to the horizontal.
Current machine set up in polling locations requires that the machines
be in full view of the poll workers. This is done in such a manner
that the display screen is exposed to those present in the polling
location, including other voters. If the restricted space around DRE
voting machines is too small, this would also threaten voter privacy.
The hearing was an opportunity for the committee charged with making
recommendations on voluntary standards for election systems and voting
technology. The committee is expected to make its recommendations to
the full Election Assistance Commission board sometime next summer for
adoption and implementation in 2006.
EPIC's testimony on voting and privacy:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/Voting_Statement.pdf
National Committee for Voting Integrity:
http://www.votingintegrity.org
For more information about electronic voting, see EPIC's Voting Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting
======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
======================================================================
EPIC FILES SUIT AGAINST CENSUS, HOMELAND SECURITY
EPIC has filed suit against two federal agencies for failing to
respond to Freedom of Information Act appeals regarding law
enforcement requests for completed census questionnaires or other
census data. The Census Bureau responded to EPIC's initial Freedom of
Information request with, among other things, a series of emails
between Census and the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and
Border Protection concerning special tabulations that Census
eventually created for Customs concerning people of Arab ancestry.
However, at Customs' request, all but one of its communications to
Census were blacked out. The disclosure also did not indicate whether
any other relevant communications were located but withheld. EPIC
appealed the decision to withhold this information to both Census and
Customs, and was forced to file suit when it did not receive a
determination from either agency within the time frame required by
law.
EPIC's complaint:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/census/foia/complaint.pdf
For more information about the documents obtained by EPIC from the
Census Bureau, see EPIC's Census FOIA page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/census/foia
COURT SAYS GOVERNMENT MUST MAKE ID ARGUMENTS PUBLICLY
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Department of
Justice's request to seal from public view its arguments supporting an
unpublished federal regulation requiring passengers to show
identification before boarding airplanes. The Justice Department
filed a motion requesting the court to reconsider, and informed the
court that while it intends to file its brief in Gilmore v. Ashcroft
by its September 29 deadline, the brief will not contain the
information it wishes to keep secret, including whether the federal
regulation even exists. The agency sought to make its argument in
front of a closed court without appellant John Gilmore or his counsel
present.
EPIC has filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that meaningful
judicial review is necessary to prevent the government from imposing a
secret, vague law upon the public in violation of constitutional due
process rights.
Gilmore v. Ashcroft web site:
http://www.gilmorevashcroft.com
EPIC's amicus brief in Gilmore v. Ashcroft:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/gilmore_amicus.pdf
For more information about air travel privacy, see EPIC's Passenger
Profiling page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/profiling
SPYWARE PRIVACY BILL ADVANCES IN SENATE
The Senate Commerce Committee has unanimously approved the Software
Principles Yielding Better Levels of Consumer Knowledge (SPY BLOCK)
Act, an anti-spyware bill which would prohibit the surreptitious
installation of software on computers. If approved by the full
Senate, the legislation will not allow software vendors to use
misleading means to induce consumers to install software, prohibit
software that prevents reasonable efforts to uninstall or disable it,
and outlaw installing software that automatically collects and
transmits information about the user without permission.
In June, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a similar
anti-spyware bill entitled the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber
Trespass Act (SPY Act).
Software Principles Yielding Better Levels of Consumer Knowledge Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.2145:
Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.2929:
HOUSE PASSES BILL TO CRIMINALIZE INACCURATE DOMAIN REGISTRATIONS
The House of Representatives has passed a bill that imposes fines and
prison terms of up to seven years upon individuals who intentionally
provide inaccurate personal information to register an Internet
domain, and then use that information to commit a felony such as
spamming or copyright infringement. The legislation would not
penalize individuals who provide false registration information simply
to keep their identitities anonymous or protect their information from
spammers and criminals. The bill now moves to the full Senate for
consideration.
Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.3754:
CHICAGO PLANS SYSTEM TO UNIFY 2,000 PUBLIC CAMERAS
Chicago will link more than 2,000 cameras located in public places
throughout the city in a network intended to spot emergencies and
suspicious behavior, Mayor Richard Daley announced earlier this month.
Most of the cameras are already installed and in use, with
approximately 1,000 located at O'Hare International Airport and others
positioned in public locations such as schools and train platforms.
The city will install an additional 250 cameras, most of them downtown
in areas the city considers high risk.
For more information about video surveillance, see Observing
Surveillance:
http://www.observingsurveillance.org
======================================================================
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws
======================================================================
JUST PUBLISHED!
Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004 (EPIC 2004),
572 pages, $40.00.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004
"Deserves a place in the library of everyone who
is involved in, or thinking about, litigation
under the Freedom of Information Act."
- Steve Aftergood
Federation of American Scientists
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. EPIC has
published the book jointly with Access Reports and the James Madison
Project.
This 22nd edition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalists
and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. The book draws
upon the expertise of practicing attorneys who are recognized leaders
in the field. This edition includes recent case developments,
including an analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Favish, and
an index to key terms.
Appendices include the text of the relevant acts and sample pleadings
for litigators. Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws
2004 adheres to the same high standards as previous editions and is
intended as a guide for Freedom of Information requesters and
plaintiff litigators. For those who litigate open government cases
(or need to learn how to litigate them), this is an essential
reference manual.
Order Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004 using
EPIC's secure order form:
https://bookstore.epic.org
================================
EPIC Publications:
"FOIA 2004: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Tiffany Stedman, editors (EPIC 2004). Price:
$40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004
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 22nd
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.
================================
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook
This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the
process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This
reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, as well as recommendations and proposals
for future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts
for individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in
the WSIS process.
================================
"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.
================================
"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
======================================================================
Nethead/Bellhead: The FCC Takes on the Internet. Cardozo Law School
Florsheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy and the Yale Law
School Information Society Project. September 28, 2004. New York,
NY. For more information: http://www.cardozobellhead.net.
IAPP Privacy and National Security Forum. International Association
of Privacy Professionals. September 30, 2004. Washington, DC. For
more information:
http://www.privacyassociation.org/html/conferences.html.
The Internet and the Law -- A Global Conversation. Law & Technology
Program, University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario. October 1-2, 2004.
For more information:
http://web5.uottawa.ca/techlaw/symposium.php?idnt=99&v=22.
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.
Health Privacy Conference. Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner of Alberta. October 4-5, 2004. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. For more information:
http://www.oipc.ab.ca/home/DetailsPage.cfm?ID=1453.
IAPP Entertainment and Privacy Forum. International Association of
Privacy Professionals. October 7, 2004. Los Angeles, CA. For more
information: http://www.privacyassociation.org/html/conferences.html.
Privacy and Identity: The Promise and the Perils of a Technological
Age. DePaul University Center for Intellectual Property Law and
Information Technology and School of Computer Science,
Telecommunications and Information Systems. October 14-15, 2004.
Chicago, IL. For more information:
http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/research/vc/CIPLIT2004.
2004 CPSR Annual Conference: Making the Grade?: A Report Card on US
Policies for the Information Society. Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility. October 16, 2004. Washington, DC. For more
information: http://cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg04.
2004 Big Brother Awards Switzerland. October 16, 2004. Lucerne,
Switzerland. For more information: http://www.bigbrotherawards.ch.
DRM 2004: The Fourth ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management.
Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on
Security, Audit and Control. October 25, 2004. Washington, DC. For
more info: http://mollie.engr.uconn.edu/DRM2004.
2004 Big Brother Awards Austria. October 26, 2004. Vienna, Austria.
For more information: http://www.bigbrotherawards.at.
Private and Private International Law Issues Raised by Electronic
Commerce. The Hague Conference on Private International Law, the
Netherlands Government and the International Chamber of Commerce.
October 26-27, 2004. The Hague, Netherlands. For more information:
http://www.hcch.net/doc/e-comm_infoe.pdf.
IAPP Privacy and Data Security Academy & Expo. International
Association of Privacy Professionals. October 27-29, 2004. New
Orleans, LA. For more information:
http://www.privacyassociation.org/html/conferences.html.
Privacy and Security: Seeking the Middle Path. Office of the
Information & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; Centre for Innovation
Law and Policy, University of Toronto; and Center for Applied
Cryptographic Research, University of Waterloo. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. October 28-29, 2004. For more information:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/uwaterloo_conf.html.
2004 Big Brother Awards Germany. October 29, 2004. Bielefeld,
Germany. For more information: http://www.bigbrotherawards.de.
The 2004 Isaac Pitblado Lectures: Privacy -- Another Snail in the
Ginger Beer. The Law Society of Manitoba, The Manitoba Bar
Association and the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law. November
19-20, 2004. Manitoba, Canada. For more information:
http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/shopping/default.asp.
National Security, Law Enforcement and Data Protection. British
Institute of International and Comparative Law Data Protection
Research and Policy Group. December 8, 2004. London, UK. For more
information: http:www.biicl.org.
Seventh International General Online Research Conference. German
Society for Online Research. March 22-23, 2005. Zurich, Switzerland.
For more information: http://www.gor.de.
CFP2005: Fifteenth Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom and
Privacy. April 12-15, 2005. Seattle, WA. For more information:
http://www.cfp2005.org.
======================================================================
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 11.18 ----------------------
.