EPIC Alert 17.24
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 17.24 December 10, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1724.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate Report All Screening Experiences at EPIC Body Scanner Incident Report http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/ ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] Congress Addresses Issues with TSA, Body Scanners [2] Public Protest Mounts Over Body Scanners [3] Rapiscan Patent Raises New Health Concerns [4] Google Patent to Use Street View Data to Identify Internet Users [5] Europe Promotes Comprehensive Data Protection Framework [6] EPIC Urges FOIA Ombudsman to Pursue FOIA Oversight [7] News in Brief [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] Congress Addresses Issues with TSA, Body Scanners ======================================================================= Congress continues to challenge the Transportation Security Administration's controversial full body scanner program. Senators and Representatives have introduced legislation, sent letters, and held hearings on the matter. EPIC has called the devices "invasive, ineffective, and unlawful," and has filed a lawsuit to suspend body scanner program. On June 4, 2009, the House voted, 310 to 118, in favor of minimizing body scans by restricting the program to individuals who first set off metal detectors. On November 18, 2010, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the "American Traveler Dignity Act." The bill denies legal immunity for any entity subjecting an individual to physical contact or imaging rays "as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft." On December 5, 2010, Senator Charles Schumer introduced the "Security Screening Confidential Data Privacy Act." Senator Schumer's bill makes it a federal crime to record or distribute images generated by the devices. On November 19, 2010, Representatives Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) sent a letter to Administrator John S. Pistole, objecting to the new airport screening procedures. Representatives Thompson and Lee wrote, "we are concerned about new enhanced pat down screening protocols and urge you to reconsider utilization of these protocols." The Representatives further said that "the TSA should have had a conversation with the American public" and should have ensured that "these changes do not run afoul of privacy and civil liberties." On the same day, Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) sent a letter to Mr. Pistole. Representative Holt has a background as a scientist, and called Mr. Pistole's attention to the fact that "excessive x-ray exposure can act as a cancer rate multiplier." Representative Holt was briefed by Dr. John Brenner of Columbia University, who informed Mr. Holt that the devices "deliver to the scalp '20 times the average dose that is typically quoted by TSA and throughout the industry.'" In hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on November 16, 2010 and the House Committee on Homeland Security on November 17, 2010, officials questioned Mr. Pistole about the privacy and health implications of airport body scanners. Pistole failed to provide proof of independent studies regarding radiation risks and consistently downplayed privacy and religious concerns. The American Traveler Dignity Act (Introduced by Rep. Ron Paul) http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39468 Letter to John Pistole from Representatives Thompson and Jackson-Lee http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20101119170706-48184.pdf Letter to John Pistole From Representative Rush Holt http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310Holt.html Senate Oversight Hearing: Transportation Security Administration http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310TSAhearing.html EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310EPICvDHS.html EPIC: Opening Brief in Legal Challenge to Body Scanner Program http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/EPIC_Body_Scanner_OB_Final.pdf ======================================================================= [2] Public Protest Mounts Over Body Scanners ======================================================================= A mounting public protest poses new challenges to the Transportation Security Administration's body scanner program. A new poll by Zogby International finds that 61% of Americans oppose the use of full body scans and pat downs at airports. 48% of Americans went further and said that they would probably seek alternatives to flying. In the run up to holiday travel, FlyersRights.org, the largest consumer's rights organization for airline passengers in the country, urges its members to exercise their rights to opt out of the agency's body scanners. The cause has earned wide support, including from "We Won't Fly," a new travelers' rights organization, who also publicized the privacy and health risks posed by the body scanner program. Prominent consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader penned an editorial for USA Today titled "TSA Is Delivering Naked Insecurity." Mr. Nader discussed radiation and burn risks identified by credentialed medical researchers. The Chair of the Libertarian Party Marc Hinkle expressed support for EPIC's lawsuit to strike down the body scanner program in federal court. Multiple individuals have filmed hostile interactions with TSA agents that occurred after they opted out of full body scans. Footage of these confrontations has been posted and is available on YouTube. Eyewitnesses complained to news outlets that airline security agents had aggressively patted down screaming toddlers, rape survivors, and cancer patients with sensitive physical conditions. Reports indicated that agents removed one woman's prosthetic breast and spilled the content of a man's urostomy bag onto his clothes and body. Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she would submit to a patdown. Secretary Clinton declined: "No, I mean, who would?" A social media grassroots campaign has developed, which led to the widely publicized National Opt-Out Day on one of the busiest airline travel days of the year: November 24, 2010. Airline passengers were urged to object to body scanners and opt for enhanced pat-downs. On November 26, 2010, "We Won't Fly" issued a press release citing "multiple reports of the [TSA] shutting down full body scanners, selecting fewer people for secondary screening, using less invasive pat-downs and being unusually friendly and helpful to flyers." "We Won't Fly" recently announced a new airline boycott for December 23, 2010. EPIC is co-hosting a TSA Oversight Conference on January 6, 2011. Zogby Poll: 61% of Americans Oppose Full Body Scans http://www.zogby.com/templates/printnews.cfm?id=1925 FlyersRights.org: Largest Non-Profit Airline Consumer Organization http://flyersrights.org/ We Won't Fly: Press Release http://wewontfly.com/tsa-blinks USA Today: Ralph Nader, "TSA is Delivering Naked Insecurity" http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310USATodayNader.html Face the Nation: Interviews of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/11/151737.htm EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanners) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310EPICvDHS.html ======================================================================= [3] Rapiscan Patent Raises New Health Concerns ======================================================================= The United States Patent Office has approved a new patent application for full body scanners. The application was filed by Rapiscan, one of the companies who contracts with the government to supply the scanners to airports and other locations where screening is considered necessary. The application provides a glimpse into hazards posed by a new class of body scanners. The new patent depicts a scanner that is faster and more compact than the ones that are used in airports today. However, the scanners are also designed to depict more detailed images, including a three-dimensional image "that can be rotated on the screen by the operator to view a combined image of the front side and back side." In order to provide these images, the new scanners utilize two scanner arrays. Language in the patent application suggests that this setup is likely to increase the health risks by raising radiation exposure. The second scanner appears to be designed in order to capture radiation signals strong enough to pass through a human body. Other problems exist also. Like previous versions, the new body scanners are designed to detect metals along with "plastics, ceramics, and illicit drugs," though powders remains notably absent from the list. The 2009 Christmas Day Bomber had intended to use powdered explosives, which he concealed on his person. In addition, the application makes it clear that these machines are still being designed and built with means to collect and store images, despite frequent statements by the Transportation Security Administration that "the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports." Experts have asked the government to respond to questions about radiation levels and privacy interests, even while the Administration continues to expand the program. By the end of 2011, over 1,000 body scanners are expected to be in use across the country. EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records concerning radiation emissions and exposure associated with airport full body scanners. USPTO: Rapiscan Patent (Nov. 2, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310RapiscanPatent.html Rapiscan Systems http://www.rapiscansystems.com/ TSA Blog (Nov. 17, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310TSABlog1117.html EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Body Scanner Radiation) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310radiation.html ======================================================================= [4] Google Patent to Use Street View Data to Identify Internet Users ======================================================================= In a pending patent application, Google describes its plans for using wireless data, some captured by its Street View vehicles, to identify and link users to their geographical location. In the application, Google explains how it would verify a user's identity by sending the user a "challenge" based on the user's geographic location. Then, assuming the user's answer is correct, Google would "allow the user access to one or more features." Wi-fi data collection is critical for this patent application, as Google would use the collected information to create these "challenges." In fact, Google has been collecting wi-fi data in thirty countries over a three-year period through its Street View vehicles, which Google originally maintained merely collected images. Even after investigations revealed Google was collecting wi-fi data, Google denied that it would link wi-fi data to particular users, and omitted any mention of user identification from its statement regarding its Street View wi-fi data collection. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has opened an investigation into Google's secretive interception and collection of wi-fi data collection. Earlier, the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau for the Federal Communications Commission warned consumers that Google's "behavior" raises important privacy concerns and said that the collection of Wi-Fi data, "whether intentional or not . . . clearly infringes on consumer privacy." In May, EPIC filed a complaint with the Commission, asking it to investigate Google's possible violations of federal wiretap law and the U.S. Communications Act. In May, members of Congress asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google's secretive collection of wi-fi data as part of Street View. In the letter, the Representatives asked the FTC whether Google's actions "form the basis of an unfair or deceptive act or practice that constitutes harm to consumers" and whether Google's actions are "illegal under federal law." No response by the FTC to this letter can be found on the Congressmen's website. In addition, unlike the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission never pursued an independent investigation of Street View, examined the data collected by Google in the United States, or even acknowledged the findings of other agencies. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently sent a letter to Google, ending its inquiry into Google Street View. EPIC has requested documents from the FTC under the Freedom of Information Act to determine the scope of inquiry and the reason it was ended. USPTO: Google Patent Application http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310GooglePatent.html Google: Submission to National Data Protection Authorities http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310GoogleNDPA.html Google: European Public Policy Blog http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310GoogleBlog.html Wall Street Journal: FCC Investigation http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310WSJFCC.html FCC Blog: Staying Safe From Cyber Snoops http://reboot.fcc.gov/blog?entryId=493624 EPIC: Letter to FCC (May 21, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310EPIC-FCC.html FTC: Letter to Google (Oct. 27, 2010) http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/101027googleletter.pdf Letter from Markey and Barton to FTC (May 19, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310MarkeyLTR.html EPIC: Google Street View http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/ ======================================================================= [5] Europe Promotes Comprehensive Data Protection Framework ======================================================================= On December 2-3, 2010 the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the Council of the European Union will hold a policy debate on "a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union." The communication, sent to the European Parliament, The Council of Europe, The Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions, contained a draft strategy for improvements in data protection, including a set of proposals to change the European Data Protection Directive. The European Commission will use this policy review, with the results of a public consultation, to revise the European Union Data Protection Directive. Public submissions and comments can be made on the European Commission's public consultation web site until January 15, 2011. The EU Commission will then propose legislation in 2011. The Justice and Home Affairs Council is also expected to authorise the opening of negotiations for agreements between the European Union and Australia, Canada, and the United States of America for the transfer and use of Passenger Name Record data. The aim of the agreements is to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious translational crime. The European Union is negotiating a comprehensive framework agreement with the United States of America government that regulates the protection of personal data once it has been transferred in the context of law enforcement and security cooperation. The European Union is seeking to ensure that any transmission of Passenger Name Record data to third countries is done in a secure manner, in line with existing European Union legal requirements and that passengers are able to enforce their rights in relation to the processing of their data. Appearing before the European Parliament on October 26, 2010, EPIC President Marc Rotenberg urged the adoption of a comprehensive framework to protect the flow of personal data between the United States and the European Union. Citing the growing concern about the misuse of sensitive data and the absence of effective legal remedies, Mr. Rotenberg said it was time for the United States of America and the European Union to develop an effective legal framework that would safeguard the rights of citizens and the users of Internet-based services. EPIC strongly supports full implementation of the EU Data Protection Directive as well as other efforts to fully safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, consumers, and users of Internet-based services. Council of the European Union: Press Release http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310COEpressrel.html European Commission: Communication to the EU Parliament http://www.epic.org/redirect/111910ECcomm.html EU Data Protection Directive 1995 http://www.epic.org/redirect/111910DPD95.html EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive http://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html EPIC: EU-US Airline Passenger Data Disclosure http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html ======================================================================= [6] EPIC Urges FOIA Ombudsman to Pursue FOIA Oversight ======================================================================= EPIC filed a request with the Office of Government Services (OGIS), as the FOIA Ombudsman, challenging the Department of Defense's unlawful assertion that it has the statutory authority to administratively withdraw a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request without input or consultation from the requester. This is a patently unauthorized assertion of authority under FOIA. OGIS is authorized under FOIA to review policies and procedures of administrative agencies, review compliance by administrative agencies, and recommend policy changes to Congress and the President. As the FOIA Ombudsman, the Office is also required to conduct audits of agencies' FOIA implementation and issue reports. FOIA provides for the affirmative disclosure of agency records and requires that agencies release all records that are not exempted from mandatory disclosure. The Department of Defense's own FOIA policies also provide for the affirmative disclosure of records and state that the only proper reason for not releasing a record is that the "request is withdrawn by the requester." The Department made its extra-legal assertion in response to a FOIA request EPIC had filed seeking documents detailing the agency's agreements with Project Vigilant, a private sector company that monitors Internet Service Providers and provides information to federal agencies. Project Vigilant professes to track more than 250 million Internet Protocol (IP) addresses a day and claims that it can develop portfolios on any name, screen name, or IP address. The OGIS is authorized under FOIA to review policies and procedures of administrative agencies, review compliance by administrative agencies, and recommend policy changes to Congress and the President. The Office is also required to conduct audits of agencies' FOIA implementation and issue reports. As a frequent FOIA litigant and an expert in FOIA statutory authority, EPIC has a strong interest in ensuring that FOIA requests are processed in a timely, lawful, and responsive manner. EPIC therefore requested that the FOIA Ombudsman investigate the Department's policies and determine how extensively the Department has been impermissibly asserting the authority to "administratively withdraw" FOIA requests. EPIC further requested that the FOIA Ombudsman publish a report of its finding and issue guidance making clear that FOIA requests cannot be administratively withdrawn by an agency without the requester's consent or input. Office of Government Information Services http://www.archives.gov/ogis/ EPIC: Letter to OGIS (Nov. 23, 2010) http://epic.org/foia/FOIA_Ombudsman_DoD_Ltr.pdf Department of Defense http://www.defense.gov/ EPIC: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010 http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/default.html EPIC: Open Government http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ ======================================================================= [7] News In Brief ======================================================================= Federal Appeals Court Overturns Vermont Medical Privacy Law The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Vermont privacy law violates the First Amendment. The law regulated data mining companies that sell or use doctors' prescribing records containing personal information on patients. EPIC, and several privacy technology experts, had filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the law. Writing in dissent and siding with EPIC, Judge Debra Ann Livingston said that the majority reached the "wrong result," creating "precedent likely to have pernicious broader effects" on medical privacy case law. A similar medical privacy law was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit Opinion http://epic.org/IMS%202d%20Cir%2011-23-10.pdf EPIC's "Friend of the Court" Brief http://epic.org/privacy/ims_sorrell/epic_amicus.pdf EPIC: IMS Health v. Sorrell http://epic.org/privacy/ims_sorrell/default.html EPIC: IMS Health v. Ayotte http://epic.org/privacy/imshealth/ One Million LifeLock Victims to Receive Refund Checks The Federal Trade Commission has announced that it would begin sending refund checks to victims of LifeLock's deceptive practices. LifeLock used false claims to sell identity protection services to consumers. In March 2010, LifeLock settled claims brought against the company, agreeing to pay $11 million to the Federal Trade Comission, and $1 million to a group of state attorney generals. As part of the settlement, LifeLock is prohibited from making any deceptive statements and must take stronger steps to protect consumer information. The settlement is one of the largest FTC-state enforcement settlements on record. FTC: LifeLock refund checks http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/11/lifelock.shtm FTC: LifeLock settlement http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/lifelock.shtm EPIC: Identity Theft http://epic.org/privacy/idtheft/ Public Comments Sought on Federal "Fusion Centers" The Department of Homeland Security is seeking comments on Fusion centers, intelligence databases that have raised substantial privacy concerns. Information in fusion centers comes from many sources, including government agencies, private sector firms and anonymous tipsters. EPIC has urged Congress to improve accountability and oversight of this program. An EPIC FOIA lawsuit also revealed that federal Fusion Centers undermine state privacy and open government laws. Comments are due December 15, 2010. Notice of Privacy Act System of Records (75 FR 69693) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-28588.htm Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Privacy Act Exemptions (75 FR 69603) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-28569.htm Notice of Privacy Act System of Records (75 FR 69689) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-28566.htm Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Privacy Act Exemptions (75 FR 96904) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-28572.htm EPIC: Statement to DHS on Fusion Centers (Sept. 19, 2007) http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/fusion-dhs.pdf Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Fusion Centers http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm EPIC: Fusion Centers and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/ EPIC: Total Information Awareness http://epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/ EPIC: EPIC v. Virginia Department of State Police http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/ European Commission Working Toward a Cloud Computing Strategy For 2011 Neelie Kroes, Vice President for the Digital Agenda of the European Commission, announced that the European Commission is working on a cloud computing strategy, which requires the input of all European Union authorities by early 2011. According to Kroes, every European cloud customer should be able to know that their cloud supplier protects their personal data efficiently and in line with EU personal data protection standards, as well as that all the countries where the cloud touches the earth - that is, where the servers are located - have legal frameworks in place that guarantee adequate data protection and privacy. Kroes also recommended the development of new laws and codes of practice. In March 2009, EPIC filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over Google's lack of adequate safeguards for its cloud computing services. European Commission: Press Release http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310ECpressrel.html EPIC: Cloud Computing http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/default.html WikiLeaks Reveals State Department Directive to Collect Biometric Data WikiLeaks released a cache of U.S. cables revealing that diplomats were directed to collect biometric data from foreign officials to fulfill the State Department's intelligence reporting and collection needs. The directive, called the "National HUMINT Collection Directive (NHCD)," required that data such as fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans be collected whenever possible. The NHCD complies with the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF), which authorizes the Director of National Intelligence to establish intelligence priorities and determine processes for collecting intelligence relevant to those priorities. Secret US Embassy Cables http://cablegate.wikileaks.org National Intelligence Priorities Framework http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310NIPF.html EPIC: Iraqi Biometric Identification System http://epic.org/privacy/biometrics/iraq.html EPIC: Biometric Identifiers http://epic.org/privacy/biometrics/ Federal Trade Commission Publishes Recommendations on Internet Privacy The Federal Trade Commission released a preliminary staff report on privacy, following a series of public roundtable discussions. The report recommends the establishment of a Do Not Track mechanism, the adoption of a "privacy by design" techniques, and the use of simplified consumer privacy notices. However, the FTC report did not address the privacy implications of cloud computing and social networking, the need for a US privacy agency, or a comprehensive federal privacy law based on "Fair Information Practices," as privacy groups had urged. FTC: Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change http://ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf FTC: Exploring Privacy http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables/ EPIC: Comments to the FTC (Jan. 26, 2010) http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/privacyroundtable/544506-00078.pdf EPIC: Federal Trade Commission http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/ European Union Opens Anti-Trust Investigation of Google The European Commission announced it is investigating Google for potential anti-trust violations. The Commission decided to initiate formal proceedings against Google after complaints from search-service providers "about unfavorable treatment of their services in Google's unpaid and sponsored search results coupled with an alleged preferential placement of Google's own services." EPIC previously filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission regarding Google's proposed merger with the advertising company DoubleClick and its implications for consumer privacy. EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg also testified in Congress during the review of this merger, urging the Federal Trade Commission to establish privacy safeguards as a condition of the merger. When the Agency approved the merger without any conditions, EPIC charged that the Agency had "reason to act, and authority to act, but failed to do so." Europa: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310europa.html EPIC: In the Matter of Google, Inc. and DoubleClick, Inc. http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/epic_complaint.pdf EPIC: Testimony of Marc Rotenberg on Google / DoubleClick Merger http://www.epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/epic_test_092707.pdf EPIC: Statement Regarding the Majority Opinion of the FTC http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/EPIC_statement122007.pdf EPIC: Google DoubleClick http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/ FTC Acts Late and Ineffectively on EPIC Complaint Regarding Echometrix The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement of its charges against Echometrix, over one year after EPIC filed a complaint in this matter. Echometrix is a software company that sold "parental control software" that collected data on children using the Internet for marketing purposes. Under the settlement with the Agency, Echometrix agreed not to share any data and to destroy the information it had collected in its marketing database, but was not required to pay any fines. EPIC's complaint to the Agency highlighted several aspects of Echometrix products that threatened consumer privacy, and alleged that Echometrix had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. In contrast to the Federal Trade Commission, the Defense Department quickly canceled a contract with Echometrix following EPIC's complaint, and the New York Attorney General filed charges against the company, which resulted in Echometrix paying a $100,000 penalty to the state of New York. FTC: Press Release (Nov. 30, 2010) http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/11/echometrix.shtm EPIC: In the Matter of Echomatrix, Inc. http://www.epic.org/redirect/092410echomatrix.html EPIC: Echomatrix Documents http://www.epic.org/redirect/120310echomatrix.html EPIC: Echometrix http://epic.org/privacy/echometrix/ ================================ 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: http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= "Broadband Networks and Smart Grid at the Crossroad Between ICT & Energy." Columbia Business School, New York, New York, 3 December 2010. For More Information: http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/events/bbnetworks. "Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection Conference European Data Protection: In Good Health?" Brussels, Belgium, 25-28 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.cpdpconferences.org/. "The Tenth Workshop on Economics of Information Security." The George Mason University, 14-15 June 2011. For More Information: http://weis2011.econinfosec.org/index.html. "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 2011." Georgetown Law Center, Washington D.C., 14-16 June 2011. For More Information: http://www.cfp2010.org/wiki/index.php/Announcement_of_CFP_2011. ======================================================================= 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 17.24 ------------------------
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.