EPIC Alert 17.13
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 17.13 July 2, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1713.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Urges US Senate to Explore Kagan's Views on Privacy [2] Federal Trade Commission Takes Action Against Twitter [3] Supreme Court Permits Disclosure of Petitioner Signatures [4] EPIC Urges Congress to Reform ECPA, Safeguard Locational Data [5] EPIC Forces Disclosure of Report on Obama Passport Breach [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: "Please Remove Your Shoes" (Documentary) [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Stop Airport Strip Searches! - JOIN Facebook Group "Stop Airport Strip Searches" and INVITE Friends - DISPLAY the IMAGE http://thepublicvoice.org/nakedmachine.jpg - SUPPORT EPIC http://www.epic.org/donate/ ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Urges US Senate to Explore Kagan's Views on Privacy ======================================================================= In anticipation of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings this week, EPIC sent a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). In addition to asking the Senators to consider Kagan's record on privacy, the letter encouraged them to ask the nominee probing questions about her views on body scanners, consumer privacy and the Fourth Amendment, among other emerging privacy issues. As Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for the Clinton Administration, Kagan wrote on several privacy issues with present-day analogues. She wrote in support of "hand held gun detector devices" that would enable "police...[to] potentially scan people in public places without their knowledge." Kagan also proposed guidelines to "allow officers to scan liberally, particularly in airports, train stations and traffic stops." She expressed these views pre-September 11, 2001, and the writings hint at her views on controversial new search techniques like the TSA's full body scanner program. Also during her time under President Clinton, Kagan expressed views on consumer privacy. She gave her support to the Administration's health care agenda, including " consumer protection reforms (to ensure quality, prevent discrimination, and protect privacy." Kagan also supported privacy protection legislation to "establish strong federal standards to ensure the confidentiality of medical records." More recently, as Solicitor General under President Obama, Kagan argued against two important lower court rulings, Comprehensive Drug Testing v. United States and City of Ontario v. Quon. In Comprehensive Drug Testing, the Ninth Circuit set forth five guidelines meant to protect privacy for law enforcement when conducting electronic searches. Kagan argued that the Comprehensive Drug Testing standards are too cumbersome, and that they will undermine the ability of law enforcement to catch criminals. Kagan also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners in Quon. In it, she argued that the government has no obligation to limit searches of text messages to protect individual privacy. This position is in direct opposition to the position taken in EPIC's amicus in Quon, which argued that petitioners' searches were overbroad and unnecessary. Solicitor General Kagan did make several comments during the hearing about Constitutional interpretation and the Fourth Amendment. In response to the first question she received from Chairman Leahy, Kagan said that the framers of the Constitution were wise to use broad terms. She noted that they, "didn't live with bomb sniffing dogs and heat detecting devices." The statement was a reference to two important Supreme Court cases, Illinois v. Caballes (2005) and Kyllo v. US (2001). EPIC, Letter to Senators Leahy and Sessions http://epic.org/privacy/kagan/EPIC_Kagan_Ltr.pdf EPIC, Elena Kagan and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/kagan/ EPIC, City of Ontario v. Quon http://epic.org/privacy/quon/ EPIC, Amicus Brief in City of Ontario v. Quon http://epic.org/privacy/quon/Quon_Brief_Draft_final.pdf Kagan's Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal in City of Ontario v. Quon http://epic.org/privacy/quon/08-1332_ReversalAmCuUSA.pdf ======================================================================= [2] Federal Trade Commission Takes Action Against Twitter ======================================================================= On June 24, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Twitter agreed to settle the Commission's charges that it had deceived consumers and put their privacy at risk by failing to safeguard their personal information. According to the Commission's complaint, Twitter represented that users had the ability to keep certain information private and that it employed various measures to protect users' information from unauthorized access. Despite these assurances, Twitter engaged in a series of practices that "taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security...and honor the privacy choices exercised by its users..." The Commission's complaint alleged that hackers were twice able to gain unauthorized administrative control of Twitter in early 2009. Administrative control gave the hackers access to non-public tweets and user information. In the first security breach, a hacker used an automated password guessing tool to guess the weak password Twitter used for its administrator account. The second security breach occurred when a hacker compromised a Twitter employee's personal email and inferred the employee's administrative password from other passwords stored in the employee's inbox. In light of these security breaches and Twitter's lax security policies, the Commission charged that Twitter's representations regarding its privacy and security measures were false and deceptive in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Under the terms of the settlement, "Twitter will be barred for 20 years from misleading consumers about the extent to which it maintains and protects the security, privacy, and confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information." This will allow the FTC to fine Twitter up to $16,000 per violation of the settlement agreement for the life of the agreement. In addition, Twitter will also be required to establish a comprehensive information security program which will be assessed by an independent security auditor ever other year for the next 10 years. Commenting on the settlement agreement, David Vladeck, Director of the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection said "When a company promises consumers that their personal information is secure, it must live up to that promise. Likewise, a company that allows consumers to designate their information as private must use reasonable security to uphold such designations." The settlement was the Commission's first enforcement action against a social networking service. EPIC has filed several FTC complaints against Facebook, another social networking service. These complaints allege that Facebook engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices through its disclosure of previously restricted private user information. The FTC is inviting public comment on the proposed settlement until July 26, 2010. FTC Press Release Announcing Settlement http://ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/twitter.shtm FTC Complaint http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923093/100624twittercmpt.pdf Settlement Agreement http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923093/100624twitteragree.pdf FTC: Invitation for Public Comment http://www.box.net/shared/sf9c9atsei EPIC: Facebook Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ ======================================================================= [3] Supreme Court Permits Disclosure of Petitioner Signatures ======================================================================= On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court held in Doe v. Reed that the state's interest in ensuring election integrity outweighs the First Amendment interest of petitioner signatories. In an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that disclosure of signatures under a state open records law “would not violate the First Amendment with respect to referendum petitions in general.” However, citing Buckley v. Valeo, the Court also left open the possibility that disclosing the identities of signatories in other circumstances could violate the First Amendment. Doe v. Reed concerned a Washington law that treated referendum petitions as public records subject to disclosure. In 2009, about 137,000 individuals signed a referendum petition in support of repealing a new state law that expanded the rights of same-sex domestic partners. Signatories to this referendum filed suit in federal court to block disclosure. The plaintiffs made two arguments: (1) there is a constitutional right, in general, to anonymity for signatories; (2) there is a right to anonymity in this particular case. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling by the Ninth Circuit as to the first argument and remanded for the lower courts to decide whether this constitutional right was violated in the particular case of the gay-rights referendum. EPIC submitted an amicus brief in this case, which urged the Justices to protect the privacy of those who sign petitions. EPIC's brief argued that revealing the names of the signatories would subject signatories to the risk of retribution, signing petitioners constitutes anonymous speech, and signing petitions is similar to casting a vote and should be protected accordingly. EPIC wrote that the anonymity of petitioner signatories “safeguards First Amendment interests and helps to ensure meaningful participation in the political process without fear of retribution.” Justices Scalia, Alito, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor, joined by Stevens and Ginsberg, all wrote concurring opinions, mostly dealing with the plaintiffs' as-applied challenge. Justice Thomas, the only dissenter, rejected the argument that it was necessary for the state to publish the names of petitions' signatories in order to ensure valid elections. He described techniques that could protect privacy and safeguard election integrity. This decision may have especial significance for disclosure provisions in pending campaign finance legislation in response to the Court's recent Citizens United decision. Doe v. Reed, 09-559, June 24, 2010 http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210doevreed.html EPIC Amicus Brief, Doe v. Reed http://epic.org/privacy/reed/EPIC_amicus_Reed.pdf EPIC Webpage on Doe v. Reed http://epic.org/privacy/reed/ ======================================================================= [4] EPIC Urges Congress to Reform ECPA, Safeguard Locational Data ======================================================================= EPIC has filed a statement for the record in a hearing on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). ECPA, which was passed in 1986, modifies the Wiretap Act and restricts the government from accessing electronic communications. However, Congress has not updated ECPA to ensure that it keeps up with new business practices. EPIC has a strong interest in reforming ECPA, as the law does not adequately safeguard location-based data. Devices such as smartphones may be equipped with global positioning system (GPS) devices that broadcast the user's location to advertisers and other third parties. Google, in deploying its Street View product, has obtained vast amounts of location-based information regarding wireless networks. And Apple's new iOS product contains terms of service that allow the company to collect location data from consumers. EPIC recommended that Congress consider how Europe updates its communications privacy laws to address challenges brought about by new technologies an new business practices. For example, locational data is explicitly covered under the recent revisions to the EU's E-Privacy Directive. EPIC argued that consumers must be able to control their data and opt-out of any collection by companies or advertisers. EPIC's Statement for the Record on ECPA Reform http://epic.org/privacy/ECPA_Statement_2010-06-24.pdf EPIC's Google Street View Page http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/ EPIC's Letter on Location Privacy to the FCC http://epic.org/privacy/wireless/epic_comments.pdf ======================================================================= [5] EPIC Forces Disclosure of Report on Obama Passport Breach ======================================================================= EPIC's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, EPIC v. State, has produced a report detailing security breaches of passport data for several Presidential candidates. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) prepared the 134-page report in the wake of a series of 2008 breaches that exposed (then) presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain's personal information. Previously secret sections of the OIG's report on the incident state, "the Department was ineffective at detecting possible incidents of unauthorized access," and criticize the agency's failure to "provide adequate control or oversight." OIG reports that it has made 22 recommendations to address identified shortcomings. As of April 2008, the passport database contained records on about 127 million passport holders, including passengers' names, social security numbers, previous names, citizenship status of parents and spouses, passport photos, and passport application records. The 2008 breaches mirrored a similar incident which took place during the 1992 election season, when the State Department discovered that Bill Clinton's passport file had been accessed illegally in an attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election. An investigation following the 1992 breach led to the resignation of one State Department official and the dismissal of the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. EPIC appeared before the Senate in 2008 concerning passport security breaches, urging lawmakers to limit employee and contractor access to personal data, increase accounting requirements, and create an independent privacy agency. EPIC's Executive Director Marc Rotenberg stated in written testimony, "Recent federal surveillance efforts have increased the likelihood that an American will become a victim of a privacy breach, and heightened the risks associated with a breach." Rotenberg noted, "These measures have not been accompanied by stronger privacy protections." Shortly after the Senate hearing, EPIC submitted a FOIA request with the State Dept. for information about the agency's security practices. When the agency provided a heavily redacted version of a critical report, EPIC filed a lawsuit. The report obtained by EPIC suggests that the agency has not fully implemented investigators' recommendations. EPIC v. Department of State http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/EPIC_v_State_Dept_Complaint.pdf EPIC: Passport Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/travel/pass/ EPIC: Open Government http://epic.org/open_gov/ EPIC: Senate Testimony Regarding Passport Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/travel/pass/senate071008.pdf Office of Inspector General's Report Regarding Passport Breaches http://www.epic.org/foia/EPIC_Passport_rpt.pdf ======================================================================= [6] News In Brief ======================================================================= Cybersecurity Legislation Moves Forward in Congress The Senate Homeland Security Committee voted unanimously to approve the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 to the Senate at a markup session on June 24th. An earlier version of the bill was introduced on June 10th and a hearing was held on June 15th. The bill would establish a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security. Critics' had said that the bill would also give the President an "internet kill switch" to take over private networks. Before committee passage, the bill was amended to include limitations on the proposed Presidential powers to declare a "cybersecurity emergency" and to better define what parts of critical infrastructure are covered by the bill. EPIC: Cybersecurity and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/ EPIC: Critical Infrastructure Protection http://epic.org/security/cip/ Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, Amended http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210cyberspaceact.html Introduction of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210introact.html Senate Homeland Security Committee Vote http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210senatevote.html Supreme Court to Review FOIA Exemption in Milner v. Dep't of Navy Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Milner v. Department of the Navy. The case concerns the scope of Exemption 2 of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency" from mandatory disclosure. Specifically, Milner concerns whether the Navy can withhold information under a specific interpretation of Exemption 2 referred to as "high 2" that permits agencies to withhold information related to internal matters where the disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement. The Ninth Circuit allowed the Navy to withhold the records at issue as "high 2" information. Writing in dissent, Judge Fletcher said that the Freedom of Information Act exemptions "must be narrowly construed." Ninth Circuit: Milner v. Department of the Navy http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210milnervdeptnavy.html The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. ยง552 http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm EPIC: Open Government FOIA Litigation http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ EPIC: FOIA Manual http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2008/ White House Adopts Weird Opt-Out Policy for Government Web Sites The White House has announced a new "Clear Notice and Personal Choice" policy for the use of Web Measurement and Customization Technologies for government web sites. The policy is remarkable in that there does not appear to be any legal basis to allow federal agencies to routinely disclose personal information of citizens to private companies. The policy is accompanied by new Guidance for Agency Use of Third-Party Websites and Applications. The White House also announced a National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace. EPIC had urged the White House to uphold Privacy Act obligations in use of web 2.0 services. Memo from the Office of the President Providing Guidance for Online Use of Web Measurement and Customization Technologies http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-22.pdf Memo from the Office of the President Providing Guidance for Agency Use of Third-Party Websites and Applications http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-23.pdf National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ns_tic.pdf EPIC: Privacy Act of 1974 http://epic.org/privacy/1974act/ EPIC: Privacy and Government Contracts with Social Media Companies http://epic.org/privacy/1974act/ European Privacy Officials Publish Opinion on Online Advertising The European Union's data protection authorities have released an opinion declaring that online advertisers must obtain “informed” consent before tracking consumers' web browsing to target ads at consumers. A press release explaining the opinion states that "although online behavioural advertising may bring advantages to online business and users alike, its implications for personal data protection and privacy are significant.” The opinion of the Article 29 Working Party clarifies how the Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive and Directive 95/46/EC apply to online behavioral advertising, stressing that companies engaging in online behavioral advertising using cookies are bound by the new EU rules on electronic privacy that require “informed” consent from consumers. EU Opinion http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210euopinion.html Press Release about EU Opinion http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210eupressrelease.html ePrivacy Directive http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210eprivacydirective.html Directive 95/46/EC http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210directive.html Scotland Yard Commences Probe of Google Street View Adding to a worldwide flood of investigations into Google's collection of private Wi-Fi data, London's Metropolitan Police Service began reviewing a criminal complaint filed against Google by London-based Privacy International on June 22, 2010. The Police Service estimates that it will spend eight to ten days conducting an initial inquiry, during which time it will determine basic facts. If London police determine that Google has broken any laws, the case will be referred to a specialist team working at the national level. The complaint was brought under two UK laws: the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The filing of a criminal complaint in London echoes similar actions undertaken in Spain, where criminal complaints have been filed against Google in two courts. EPIC - Investigations of Google Street View http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/default.html Privacy International Complaint http://www.epic.org/redirect/070210privacyintlcomp.html UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_1 UK Wireless Telegraphy Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060036_en_1 EPIC - Spanish Investigation of Google Street View http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/default.html#spain ======================================================================= [7] EPIC Bookstore: "Please Remove Your Shoes" ======================================================================= In "Please Remove Your Shoes," director/producer Rob Delgado examines the many flaws of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and its predecessor, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The film uses the narratives of several TSA and FAA workers to explore the myriad of agency failings that put national security at risk on a daily basis. "Please Remove Your Shoes" presents the story of current and former FAA and TSA managers, inspection team leaders, and Federal Air Marshals in an approachable and human way, and uses this narrative to frame a larger discussion of the agency's many problems. Former FAA employees discuss bureaucratic bloat and the Agency's unwillingness to make necessary improvements or correct weaknesses identified by its own employees. A Federal Air Marshal describes the continual lowering of standards for Marshals and the ways that TSA has undermined the Marshals' effectiveness. Several of the employees describe harassment and retaliation that they suffered as a result of well-meaning whistleblowing. The film identifies several ways that TSA (and FAA) have failed travelers. The agency lacks transparency and accountability, it fails to respond to its own employees concerns, engages in cronyism, and spends vast amounts of money on ineffective technologies (like the puffer machines and current WBI rollout). Ultimately, "Please Remove Your Shoes," builds its case in an interesting and compelling fashion and should leave viewers asking important questions about the cost and effectiveness of America's transportation security programs. For more information about "Please Remove Your Shoes," see: http://pleaseremoveyourshoesmovie.com/ --Ginger McCall ================================ 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 ======================================================================= W3C Workshop on Privacy for Advanced Web APIs London, England, July 12-13, 2010. For more information: http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/agenda Seventh Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse, and Spam Conference Redmond, WA, July 13-14, 2010. For more information: http://ceas.cc/2010/main.shtml Developing a Social Media Policy That Limits Risk: Practical Advice for Companies in Regulated Industries Webinar, July 15, 2010. For more information: http://www.legaledge.bna.com/Pagemanager.aspx?pageId=9972 Eleventh Annual Institute on Privacy and Data Security Law Chicago, IL, July 19-20, 2010. For more information: www.plu.edu/product/seminar_detail.asp?id=60005 Privacy and Identity Management for Life (PrimeLife/IFIP Summer School 2010) Helsingborg, Sweden, August 2-6, 2010. For more information: http://www.cs.kau.se/IFIP-summerschool/ Privacy and Security in the Future Internet 3rd Network and Information Security (NIS'10) Summer School Crete, Greece, September 13-17 2010. For more information: http://www.nis-summer-school.eu Internet Governance Forum 2010 Vilnius, Lithuania, 14-16 September 2010. For more information: http://igf2010.lt/ "32nd Int'l 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 17.13 ------------------------ .
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.