EPIC Alert 17.03
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 17.03 February 12, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1703.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Files suit for NSA Surveillance Authority [2] EPIC Seeks Records on Google/NSA Relationship [3] European Parliament Rejects US Bank Data Deal [4] FTC Sets Out Priorities, but Lacks Strategy for Privacy Protection [5] Federal Budget Plan for FY 2011 Announced [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: "You Are Not a Gadget" [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events - TAKE ACTION: Stop Airport Strip Searches - JOIN Facebook Group "Stop Airport Strip Searches" and INVITE Friends to JOIN - DISPLAY the IMAGE http://thepublicvoice.org/nakedmachine.jpg - SUPPORT EPIC http://www.epic.org/donate/ ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Files Suit for NSA Surveillance Authority ======================================================================= EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the NSA and the National Security Council, seeking a key document governing national cybersecurity policy. The document, National Security Presidential Directive 54 (NSPD 54) grants the NSA broad authority over the security of American computer networks. NSPD 54 was issued by President Bush in 2008, and under this secret Directive, the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative was formed to "improve how the federal government protects sensitive information from hackers and nation states trying to break into agency networks." EPIC requested the document to determine the adequacy of privacy and civil liberties safeguards within the plan. The agencies violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to make public the Directive and related records in response to EPIC's request and repeated appeals. EPIC's suit asks a federal judge to require the release of the documents. Congress is currently debating cybersecurity policy in the form of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, still pending in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EPIC Complaint EPIC v. NSA, No. 10-00196, (D.D.C. filed Feb. 4, 2010) http://www.epic.org/foia/NSPD54_complaint.pdf EPIC FOIA Administrative Appeal EPIC v. NSA, Administrative Appeal http://www.epic.org/foia/FOIAapp112409.pdf EPIC FOIA Litigation Docket http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ EPIC: Critical Infrastructure Protection http://epic.org/security/cip/ ======================================================================= [2] EPIC Seeks Records on Google/NSA Relationship ======================================================================= On February 4, 2010 EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the National Security Agency, seeking records regarding the relationship between Google and the NSA. The press reported that Google and the NSA have entered into a partnership following a recent hacker attack on Google originating from China. On January 12, 2010, Google announced that hackers originating from China had attacked Google's corporate infrastructure. According to Google, evidence suggested "that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists." On February 4, 2010, the Washington Post reported that Google and the NSA had entered into a "partnership" to help analyze the attack by permitting them to "share critical information." The NSA and Google have sought to maintain the secrecy of the agreement, as the Post reported that "Google and the NSA declined to comment on the partnership." But, the NSA acknowledged that it has worked with the private sector on cybersecurity in the past: NSA spokeswoman Judi Emmel stated that "as part of its information-assurance mission, NSA works with a broad range of commercial partners and research associates to ensure the availability of secure tailored solutions for Department of Defense and national security systems customers." In order to discover the details of the Google/NSA relationship, EPIC filed a request under FOIA for any records pertaining to the agreement. EPIC believes that the public has a significant interest in learning the details of the agreement in order to make informed decisions regarding their online privacy and security. The EPIC FOIA request also seeks NSA communications with Google regarding Google's failure to encrypt Gmail and cloud computing services. On January 13, 2010 Google set as a default the encryption of all traffic to and from its Gmail email servers. Complete traffic encryption was available to users beginning in 2008, but was not enabled by default. Due in part to the lack of encryption in Google's cloud computing services, EPIC filed a complaint before the Federal Trade Commission on March 17, 2009, petitioning the Commission to investigate the adequacy of Google's privacy and security safeguards. Despite the cybersecurity risk to the millions of Gmail users, Google did not enable complete encryption until after the hacker attack originating from China. The timing of Google's decision to enable traffic encryption suggests a connection between that decision and Google's relationship with the NSA regarding the hacker attacks. EPIC also recently filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency and the National Security Council, seeking a key document governing national cybersecurity policy. EPIC, FOIA Request to NSA Concerning NSA/Google Relationship (Feb. 4, 2010) http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/NSA-Google_FOIA_Request.pdf EPIC: FOIA Litigation http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ EPIC: Cloud Computing Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/ ======================================================================= [3] European Parliament Rejects US Bank Data Deal ======================================================================= On Wednesday, February 10, 2010, rejected an agreement to permit the continued transfer of data on European citizens, maintained by the SWIFT financial clearing service, to the United States. The vote was 376 to 198, with 31 abstentions. Members of the parliament stated the proposed agreement lacked adequate privacy safeguards, and was a disproportionat response to US concerns about terrorism that also lacked reciprocity. The European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee head earlier recommended rejecting the data sharing agreement between the United States and Europe. "Parliament should withhold its consent to the EU's interim agreement on banking data transfers to the USA via the SWIFT network," the Civil Liberties Committee suggested. While the United States authorities argue that access to this information is key to counterterrorism efforts, the EU Civil Liberties Committee rejects this invasion of privacy, and objects to the lack of adequate protection of personal data. According to Deutsche Welle, "The United States has warned that it may stop working with EU institutions on terrorist data exchange if the European Parliament next week blocks a bilateral deal on the issue." The deal will be put to a plenary vote in Strasbourg on February 11, 2010. In September 2009, the EU Parliament reaffirmed that personal data should be gathered only for the purposes of fighting terrorism, a right balance must be found between security measures and the protection of civil liberties, and the same access and judicial redress mechanisms - including compensation in the event of unlawful processing of personal data - should be in place for EU citizens. The first agreement between the US and EU concerned the US acquisition and use of financial data from Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). The deal allowed the United States to access information collected by SWIFT. In the agreement, the US restricts its use of any data received from SWIFT to exclusively counter-terrorism purposes. In 2006 Privacy International launched a campaign in 33 European countries, urging close scrutiny of the original SWIFT banking deal shortly after it came to light that United States officials routinely accessed financial records of European citizens without appropriate legal authority. The second agreement concerned the transfer of passenger name record information for travelers on all flights originating in the EU and landing in the US. The European Court of Justice declared a 2004 agreement on the same subject invalid in 2006. Although the Court's decision did not address the privacy issues of passenger name record data transfer, EU officials have expressed concern over the amount of data collected, the length of time for which the data is retained, and the lack of access and redress for EU citizens. EuroParliament: SWIFT VOTE : European Parliament votes down agreement with the US http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210swiftvotedown.html EuroParliament: SWIFT - Civil Liberties Committee Recommends Rejecting the Agreement http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210swiftrecc.html EuroParliament: EU-US SWIFT Agreement (June 28, 2007) http://www.epic.org/privacy/pdf/swift-agmt-2007.pdf EPIC: Spotlight on Surveillance on the SWIFT program http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0606/ European Parliament, Is Transatlantic Data Protected? (March 26, 2007) http://www.epic.org/redirect/EP-0307.html Article 29 Working Group: opinion on the processing of personal data by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210art29wkggrp.html EPIC: EU-US Airline Passenger Data Disclosure http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html Privacy International Launches Campaign to Suspend Unlawful Activities of Finance Giant http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210privintl.html ======================================================================= [4] FTC Sets Out Priorities, but Lacks Strategy for Privacy Protection ======================================================================= The Federal Trade Commission released the Congressional budget justification summary for FY 2011 and performance plan for FY 2010-11. The agency requests $314 million, an increase of over $22 million from the FTC's FY 2010 budget request. The FTC documents list three strategic goals: protect consumers, maintain competition, and advance performance. Most of the agency's budget will be devoted to stopping "fraud, deception, unfairness and other unlawful practices through law enforcement" and taking "actions against anticompetitive mergers and practices that may cause significant consumer injury." Objectives related to protecting consumers and maintaining competition include increasing consumer education, conducting more research, reports, rulemaking, and advocacy, and protecting Americans in the "global marketplace." The FTC seeks to advance performance through "organizational, individual, and management excellence." The FTC Implementation Plan includes the development of approaches to implement OECD Guidelines on consumer protection in the context of electronic commerce, although there is no mention of implementing OECD Guidelines on privacy protection. Further, the plan mentions consulting with international authorities, including the OECD, in order to develop "new approaches to privacy and cross-border data transfers," but still makes no mention of implementing the established OECD guidelines on privacy and transborder flows of personal data. FTC: FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification Summary http://ftc.gov/ftc/oed/fmo/budgetsummary11.pdf FTC: FY 2010-11 Performance Plan http://ftc.gov/opp/gpra/2011_performance_plan.pdf OECD Guidelines on Consumer Protection in the Context of E-Commerce http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210oecdgdlnsconsumer.html OECD Guidelines on Privacy Protection http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210oecdgdlnspriv.html ======================================================================= [5] Federal Budget Plan for FY 2011 Announced ======================================================================= The Office of Management and Budget has released the federal budget for fiscal year 2011. The budget proposes funding for several new surveillance initiatives, including over $700 million to the Department of Homeland Security for "Passenger Aviation Security". The Department would like to purchase 500 body scanner machines for U.S. airports, bringing the projected total number of machines to 1,000 at a cost of over $200 million by the end of 2011. The DHS Privacy Office is also expanding, with an increase of almost $1 million to support six new positions (four full-time). According to the Office's budget request, "[t]he additional staff will ensure intelligence and incident-related information reaches the right individuals at the right time while creating a culture of awareness for privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties." The new budget also includes several hundred million dollars for the Department of Justice's national security programs, which were recently the subject of a critical Inspector-General's report for improper use of authority. The Inspector-General found that "the FBI sought and acquired reporters' telephone toll billing records and calling activity information" through improper means. OMB Federal Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/ DHS Budget and Finance Documents http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/ EPIC DHS and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html EPIC Whole Body Imaging http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html DOJ Inspector General Report http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s1001r.pdf ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= DHS Issues Final Rule on Secret Traveler Profiling Program On February 3, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule exempting data used by the Automated Targeting System (ATS) from various requirements of the Privacy Act. ATS was originally established to assess cargo that may pose a threat to the United States, but the Department of Homeland Security now uses the system to establish a secret terrorism risk profile for millions of people. EPIC submitted comments to DHS in 2007, urging the agency to either suspend ATS or to fully apply all Privacy Act safeguards to any individual subject to ATS. Despite the erosion of privacy, DHS issued the final rule without making any changes to the proposed exemptions. EPIC, Comments on ATS (September 5, 2007) http://www.epic.org/privacy/travel/ats/epic_090507.pdf EPIC: Automated Targeting System http://epic.org/privacy/travel/ats/ EPIC: Air Travel Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/ DHS, Text of Final Rule (February 3, 2010) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-2201.pdf EU Commissioner Viviane Reding Sets Out Privacy Priorities EU Information Society Commissioner, Viviane Reding, delivered a Keynote Speech at the European Parliament on January 28, International Privacy Day. Ms. Reding made a strong call to protect personal data against any unauthorized use and emphasized that citizens have the right to decide how their data will be processed. "It is my firm belief that we cannot expect citizens to trust Europe if we are not serious in defending the right to privacy," she said. Commissioner Reding affirmed that the protection of the right of personal data should be respected at all times, even when performing simple operations like transferring money, booking a flight ticket, or passing a security check at the airport. Commissioner Reding rejected the installation of body scanners unless studies are performed to determine whether the devices are effective and safe. "I am convinced that body scanners have a considerable privacy-invasive potential. Their usefulness is still to be proven. Their impact on health has not yet been fully assessed. Therefore I cannot imagine this privacy-intrusive technique being imposed on us without full consideration of its impact," she noted. The European position in the current dispute is strengthened by the recent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Viviane Reding, Keynote Speech, Privacy: the challenges ahead for the European Union (January 28, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210sredingstmt.html EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ EPIC: Event Materials and Handouts on Whole Body Imaging http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/#handouts EPIC: The Lisbon Treaty http://epic.org/privacy/intl/lisbon_treaty.html The Public Voice: Stop Digital Strip Searches in Airports http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210publicvoice.html Madrid Privacy Declaration http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ Facebook Users Object to Beacon Settlement Facebook users filed papers in federal court objecting to a proposed deal that would extinguish the company's liability for disclosing personal information in violation of federal law. Users criticized the class action settlement, stating "the class receives no meaningful relief." Other objectors alleged "in effect, Facebook is paying itself the benefit but class members are releasing their individual privacy claims." EPIC previously submitted a letter to the judge hearing the case. EPIC's letter opposes the settlement and proposes alternatives that would enable stronger privacy safeguards for Facebook users in the future. Facebook Objector's Brief http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Facebook_Beacon_objections_McCall.pdf Second Facebook Objector's Brief http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/obj_FB_Beacon.pdf Facebook, Proposed Settlement http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/ EPIC: Social Networking Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/ EPIC: Facebook Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ EPIC: Harris v. Blockbuster http://epic.org/amicus/blockbuster/default.html FCC Commits to Protecting Consumers in FY 2011 Performance Plan The FCC released its FY 2011 budget request and performance plan. The FCC requests funding for furthering cybersecurity, implementing the National Broadband Plan, revamping the FCC's data systems and processes, and modernizing the agency's communications tools and expertise. The FCC prioritizes implementation of the National Broadband Plan and protection of consumers in the agency's performance goals. Objectives regarding consumers include: addressing 100% of complaints alleging violations of the Communications Act and taking appropriate action within 15 months; rigorously enforcing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and ensuring "through litigation where necessary, that consumers are protected from anticompetitive practices." FCC: 2011 Congressional Budget Justification and Summary http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296111A1.pdf National Broadband Plan http://www.broadband.gov/ Communications Act of 1934 http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf Telephone Consumer Protection Act http://epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/ New DHS Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Officer Appointed Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the appointment of Prof. Margo Schlanger to lead the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Prior to her appointment, Schlanger was a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and she has researched extensively in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties. She was also Founding Director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. In her new position, Schlanger will be responsible for reviewing existing and forthcoming Department of Homeland Security programs for civil liberties issues, as well as for investigating complaints filed by members of the public. DHS Press Release http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1264628078956.shtm DHS Office of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties http://www.dhs.gov/crcl Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse http://www.clearinghouse.net/ Prof. Schlanger's Bio http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=415 Revised Google Books Settlement Fails to Fix Key Problems Even after revisions, the Google Books Settlement still fails to address antitrust, privacy, and copyright concerns, according the the US Justice Department, privacy advocates, and academic authors.On February 4, the Justice Department filed a brief and issued a statement opposing the revised settlement. The Department said the revisions still ran afoul of authors' copyrights and did not fix antitrust problems. EPIC also continues to object to the settlement because it does not contain adequate privacy protections for readers. On February 4, EPIC informed the court of its intent to appear at the February 18 Fairness Hearing on behalf of users' privacy interests. Google Books, Proposed Settlement (Revised) http://www.googlebooksettlement.com Academic Authors', Objections to Revised Settlement http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210academicauthobj.html Justice Department, Brief http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/usa.pdf Justice Department, Statement (February 4, 2010) http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-opa-128.html EPIC: Google Books and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/googlebooks/default.html EPIC: Google Books Litigation http://epic.org/privacy/googlebooks/litigation.html EPIC: Google Books: Policy Without Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/googlebooks/policy.html ======================================================================= [7] EPIC Bookstore: "You Are Not a Gadget" by Jaron Lanier ======================================================================= "In my view, people have often respected bits too much, resulting in a creeping degradation of their own qualities as human beings." In "You are not a gadget," Jaron Lanier assaults the foundations of the Web 2.0 world, arguing that it promotes the collective "hive-mind" above individuality and squelches intellectual achievement. He maintains that a new "digital humanism" is needed to return basic humanity to the digital world. Lanier begins by observing that the internet and many other basic concepts did not have to be designed the way they are. Drawing analogues to UNIX, MIDI, and the very concept of a file, Lanier argues that the Internet's first designers made crucial design decisions that became locked-in as more design decisions were built upon it. For instance, he argues that pervasive anonymity or pseudonymity on the Internet are not necessarily a good thing. However, a nearly locked-in faith in "cybernetic totalism," or "the idea that the internet as a whole is coming alive and turning into a superhuman creature," is bad for "spirituality, morality, and business." One way in which ordinary people are degraded, he argues, is through the reduction of friendship. Social networking sites like Facebook remove the basic humanity of a real friendship. Moreover, he argues that social networking sites exist primarily to benefit advertisers by steering "the evolution of the net" in order to make acceptable a "method of violating privacy and dignity." However, he notes that the Facebook Beacon debacle proved that individuals can still steer the design of the internet away from abusive and invasive practices. Cybernetic totalism is bad for business, he argues, because it "leads to economic ideas that disfavor the loftiest human avocations." Rather than valuing the cultural expression of artists, musicians, and journalists, it singles out advertising, which is elevated by open culture from its previous role as an accelerant and placed at the center of the human universe. He then proposes several suggestions for addressing the future of paid cultural expression. Lanier doesn't provide perfect solutions to the problems he observes. However, he concludes by outlining humanistic technology that would allow humans to engage in "postsymbolic communication," which might "provide a path to escaping the prison of predefined, locked-in ontologies." --Matt Phillips ================================ EPIC Publications: "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2008," edited by Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC 2008). Price: $60. http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2008/ Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws. This updated version includes new material regarding the substantial FOIA amendments enacted on December 31, 2007. Many of the recent amendments are effective as of December 31, 2008. The standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2008 volume is the 24th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. ================================ "Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98. http://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more. Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law. ================================ "Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75. http://www.epic.org/phr06/ This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over 75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections, new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy. Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy and data protection ever published. ================================ "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, and 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 2004: United States Law, International Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/ The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students, attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials include the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act. ================================ "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. ================================ 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 also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at: https:/mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= Limiting Knowledge in a Democracy, The New School, New York City, February 24-26, 2010. For more information: http://www.socres.org/limitingknowledge Fourth Law and Information Society Symposium: Hate Versus Democracy on the Internet, Fordham University, New York City, February 26, 2010. For more information: http://www.epic.org/redirect/021210infolawsymp.html RSA 2010, San Francisco, March 1-5, 2010. For more information: http://www.rsaconference.com/2010/usa/ Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Cincinnati, March 5, 2010. For more information: http://www.indiana.edu/~appe/annualmeeting.html Privacy 2010, Stanford, March 23 - 25, 2010. For more information: http://codex.stanford.edu/privacy2010 Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, San Jose, June 15-18, 2010. For more information: http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?p=6 32nd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, Jerusalem, October 2010. For more information: http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJEng/RashutTech/News/conference2010.htm ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook http//facebook.com/epicprivacy http://epic.org/facebook Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC. ======================================================================= 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). ======================================================================= Donate to EPIC ======================================================================= 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. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface: http://mailman.epic.org/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. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 17.03------------------------ .
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.