EPIC logo

                            E P I C  A l e r t
Volume 11.08                                             April 29, 2004

                             Published by the
               Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
                             Washington, D.C.

Table of Contents

[1] EPIC Files Gmail FOIA Requests; Groups Call for System Suspension 
[2] EPIC Files Brief in Maryland DNA Database Case
[3] EPIC Urges FCC to Reject Expansion of CALEA
[4] American Airlines Admits Disclosing Passenger Data
[5] New U.S. Election Assistance Commission Begins its Work
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  F R E E D O M  2 . 0  :  D I S T R I B U T E D  D E M O C R A C Y
                    - Dialogue for a Connected World
           Democracy * Transparency * Privacy * Public Voice
                   May 20-22, 2004 * Washington, DC
                Register today at http://www.epic04.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[1] EPIC Files Gmail FOIA Requests; Groups Call for System Suspension 

Today, EPIC filed Freedom of Information requests with federal law
enforcement and intelligence agencies seeking records concerning "use
of Google search technology for law enforcement and intelligence
purposes, and particularly the possible use of Google's Gmail service
for law enforcement and intelligence investigations."  The requests
note that Google's Gmail is capable of performing functions for law
enforcement and intelligence agencies that have been the subject of
Congressional action and widespread public debate.  Gmail is capable
of storing a vast amount of personal communications data for link
analysis, creating a honey pot for law enforcement requests to pervert
the system for surveillance.

Earlier, thirty-one privacy and civil liberties groups called upon
Google to suspend Gmail, a free webmail system that provides users
with an entire gigabyte of storage space but also scans the content of
all e-mails for placement of advertising.  Gmail raises a series of
important privacy issues and has sparked a lively debate in the
technology community regarding informed consent, risks associated with
penetrating into the content of messages for advertising purposes, and
the problem of law enforcement access to e-mail communications.  The
debate has been especially contentious because many computer users
have great admiration for the company's search product and do not wish
to see Google's friendly reputation change with the advent of invasive
new products or its business methods deteriorate after a public
offering that will necessarily orient its duties towards maximizing
shareholder profit.

The groups raised a series of risks to privacy posed by the service.
First, the scanning of the actual content of e-mail messages for
placement of advertising is an unprecedented invasion into the
sanctity of communications.  It is likely to reduce expectation of
privacy in e-mail, and provide justifications for communications
scanning for other purposes.  Federal law sets forth some of the
strongest protections for the content of communications, often
referred to collectively as the "Title III warrant," which require
probable cause, can only be triggered by the commission of serious
criminal acts, and have accountability provisions including reporting
and the ability to sue individuals who eavesdrop without
justification.  Gmail's defenders have claimed that scanning for ad
placement is similar to scanning for spam, and that it can occur
lawfully under an exception under wiretapping laws for maintenance of
communications network.  But this is a an improper invocation of the
exemption -- it was created to ensure quality and integrity of the
network, not to provide an "anything goes" exemption to wiretapping
laws.  For instance, telephone companies use the exemption to listen
to calls to test audio quality; if the companies started actually
extracting content from these conversations, the exemption would
eviscerate the protections of the law and violate the expectations of
telephone users.

Google has countered this criticism by emphasizing that a computer,
not a human, will scan the content of the e-mail, thereby making the
system less invasive.  The letter points out that computers can be
more privacy invasive and, in fact, many privacy laws have passed
because of the heightened privacy risks associated with computers'
storage, memory, and associative capabilities.  Regulations limiting
telephone autodialers are such an example, where the persistence and
capacity of a computer to initiate telemarketing calls faster than
humans sparked the creation of two federal telemarketing laws in the

Second, Google's data retention policies and enticements to users to
keep their e-mail for a long time create privacy risks under federal
wiretapping laws.  After 180 days, e-mail can be obtained by law
enforcement with a mere subpoena rather than a full probable cause
warrant.  Elsewhere in the world, law enforcement is lobbying for
mandatory data retention requirements that allow police to gain access
to years of stored communications with little legal oversight.  In
effect, Gmail's retention implements these policies, and will
facilitate law enforcement access to communications in some cases even
after messages are deleted by the user.

A third problem arises from the risk that Google will link its
persistent search engine cookie with individuals' identities revealed
by Gmail.  This is not unlike the DoubleClick/Abacus debate, where
DoubleClick could have linked its anonymous online tracking records
with millions of identifiable records possessed by Abacus.  Google has
refused to promise not to link the two cookies.

Finally, Gmail scans both the mail sent and received on the account. 
This raises serious quality of consent issues for senders of mail to
the Gmail domain and may violate more stringent state wiretapping and
international privacy laws.

EPIC's FOIA Request:


Coalition Letter:

[2] EPIC Files Brief in Maryland DNA Database Case

EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in Maryland v. Raines, a
case that will determine whether compelled DNA production is an
unreasonable search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment and
the Constitution of Maryland.

The case challenges the Maryland DNA Collection Act, which allows the
State of Maryland to collect DNA from individuals who have committed
felonies and certain misdemeanor offenses.  Earlier this year, the
Maryland General Assembly considered expanding the law to require
collection of DNA from arrestees.  Profiles of collected DNA are added
to a state DNA database, which feeds into a national DNA database
known as the Combined DNA Index System or CODIS, which is maintained
by the FBI.

EPIC's brief first pointed out that in many areas of the law Maryland
provides stronger privacy protection than the federal Fourth
Amendment.  EPIC then challenged the fallacy that collecting DNA and
taking fingerprints involve the same privacy concerns.  While a
fingerprint merely indicates whether an individual has been in a
specific location, DNA can reveal health, gender, and familial
information, EPIC argued.  Furthermore, because members of the same
family have similar DNA patterns, an individual's DNA profile may
indirectly implicate a relative.  Moreover, there is no uniform
storage policy for DNA samples.  Rather, each state has a different
policy, and Maryland's is to retain samples indefinitely.  Not only
could samples end up in the hands of researchers, but international
cooperation among law enforcement agencies has opened CODIS up to
other governments.

EPIC recently filed an amicus brief in United States v. Kincade, a
case in which a parolee has challenged the federal DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, which allows the government to take
DNA samples from individuals in federal custody and parolees who have
committed a qualifying offense.

EPIC's amicus brief in Maryland v. Raines:


EPIC's amicus brief in United States v. Kincade:


For more information about privacy of DNA, see EPIC's Genetic Privacy


[3] EPIC Urges FCC to Reject Expansion of CALEA

EPIC has filed comments urging the Federal Communications Commission
to reject the request of federal law enforcement agencies to expand
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA)
to cover Internet Service Providers and "Voice over IP" services.
CALEA currently requires telecommunications service providers to
provide wiretapping access to law enforcement, but does not apply to
Voice over IP (VoIP) or Internet Service Providers.  The Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Drug Enforcement
Administration have petitioned the FCC to regulate Internet telephony
in such a way that CALEA can be legally and technically applied.  VoIP
providers would have to rewire their networks to government
specifications so that law enforcement officials could more easily
listen in to VoIP calls.  In its comments, EPIC brought to the
Commission's attention the limitations in the language of CALEA,
information obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act
demonstrating likelihood of capturing information on non-suspects, and
statements by the Department of Justice that show there is no
demonstrable need for the request to expand CALEA.

EPIC pointed out that Congress intentionally limited the scope of
CALEA.  The language of CALEA unambiguously excludes information
services such as e-mail and Internet access.  The legislative history
of CALEA unequivocally states that "[t]he only entities required to
comply with the functional requirements are telecommunications common
carriers, the components of the public-switched network where law
enforcement agencies have always served most of their surveillance
orders."  The legislative history is equally clear that "excluded from
[CALEA's] coverage are "all information services, such as Internet
service providers or services such as Prodigy and America-On-Line."
The narrow scope of CALEA's mandate is best summarized by the
legislative history's explanation that "the bill does not require
reengineering of the Internet, nor does it impose prospectively
functional requirements on the Internet[.]"  In light of the clear
Congressional intent that information services be excluded from the
CALEA requirements, an extension of surveillance requirements to such
networks could only occur if Congress revisited CALEA and addressed
the Justice Department's concerns.  EPIC argued that it is not for the
Commission to extend the statutory mandate to networks and
technologies that Congress clearly sought to exclude.

Second, EPIC stated, law enforcement access to network traffic can
result in the interception of communications of third parties not
named or identified in court surveillance orders -- a phenomenon that
never occurred in the traditional, circuit-switched telephone
environment. As such, the expansion of CALEA's technical requirements
urged by the Justice Department would make it difficult, if not
impossible, for carriers to comply with the statutory command that
they protect "the privacy and security of communications and
call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted."
Internal FBI documents obtained by EPIC through Freedom of Information
Act litigation show, beyond question, that surveillance conducted in
packet-mode environments can result -- and indeed has resulted -- in
the unauthorized capture of third-party communications.  As the
comments state, "the Commission would abdicate its responsibility to
'protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized to
be intercepted' were it to expand CALEA's reach in the manner [the
Justice Department] suggests."

Finally, EPIC argued that the Department of Justice has not met its
burden of demonstrating the need for the proceeding it requests or the
remedy it seeks.  In its "field guidance" discussing the USA PATRIOT
Act amendments relating to electronic surveillance, the Justice
Department acknowledged that it is only in "infrequent cases" that
Internet Service Providers are not able to provide law enforcement
with requested information.  The Justice Department admits that even
in the "rare" and "infrequent" cases where service providers cannot
fully comply with a court order, law enforcement has, through the use
of its own technology, been able to obtain the information it seeks
(and, as EPIC has shown, sometimes more than that).

EPIC comments on CALEA:


For more information about CALEA, see EPIC's Wiretapping Page:


[4] American Airlines Admits Disclosing Passenger Data

American Airlines recently became the third commercial airline to
admit turning over passenger information to the United States
government or its contractors without the knowledge or consent of
affected passengers.  American announced that Airline Automation, a
vendor working for the airline, gave 1.2 million passenger records in
June 2002 to four companies that were competing for contracts with the
Transportation Security Administration.  The airline conceded that it
had authorized the records to be disclosed to the agency, but not the
contractors.  Airline Automation disputed American's version of
events, contending that the airline merely said that it would receive
instructions from the Transportation Security Administration, which
then asked that the data be transferred directly to the contractors
"testing aviation security systems" for the agency.

The Transportation Security Administration has repeatedly denied to
Congress and the public that actual passenger information has been
used to test the controversial second generation Computer Assisted
Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II.  CAPPS II has been the
target of Congressional scrutiny since the General Accounting Office
released a report in February concluding that major concerns about the
program previously identified by Congress had not been adequately

The Department of Homeland Security, parent agency of the
Transportation Security Administration, has announced that it is
investigating the government's role in the disclosure.

In related news, the European Parliament has passed a resolution
challenging the European Commission's temporary agreement to share
airline passenger data with the United States government.  The
Parliament also asked the European Union's top court to determine
whether the agreement violates European privacy laws and whether the
Parliament's consent is necessary for the agreement to enter into
force.  If the court finds that the agreement violates European laws,
it will be annulled or declared invalid.

Press Release, American Airlines, American Airlines Passenger Data
Released In June 2002 (April 9, 2004):


Press Release, Airline Automation, Airline Automation, Inc. Provided
Data With the Consent of American Airlines, Inc. (April 10, 2004):


For more information about the EU/U.S. agreement to share passenger
data, see EPIC's EU/U.S. Passenger Data Disclosure Page:


[5] New U.S. Election Assistance Commission Begins its Work

After the 2000 presidential election, many flaws in our nation's
antiquated voting system were highlighted by a protracted recount of
Florida ballots that culminated in a legal challenge to the process
brought by then-candidate George W. Bush before the Supreme Court.

Congress sought to remedy many of the problems identified by the
apparent closeness of the presidential contest in Florida through the
passage of the Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law on
October 29, 2002.  The law, among other things, created a four-member
Commission to lead a new agency, the U.S. Election Administration
Commission, which is expressly charged with formulating and
implementing improvements in our nation's voting system.  The Act also
established a provisional ballot right for voters to insure that all
those who enter polling places to cast their votes on Election Day
will have the opportunity to do so.  In addition, the law directed
that all punch card and lever voting machines be replaced by either
optical scan or direct recording electronic voting technology.

The Senate confirmed the Commission's four members on December 9,
2003.  Two members, each serving for four years, are Chairman Deforest
B. Soaries, Jr. of New Jersey, and Commissioner Raymundo Martinez III
of Texas.  The other two members, who will serve for two years, are
Vice Chair Gracia M. Hillman of the District of Columbia and
Commissioner Paul S. DeGregorio of Missouri. The Commission held its
first official public meeting on March 23, 2004 and will hold its
first public hearing on May 5, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. on the Present
Status of Computerized Electronic Voting Systems.  The Commission will
hear testimony from several groups of experts sitting on the
Technology Panel, Vendor Panel, Election Administrator Panel, Research
Panel and Advocacy Organization Panel.  The hearing is open to the
public and will take place at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, in Room 3000, Rachel L.
Carson Great Hall, Ariel Rios North Building, Washington, DC.

Soon the Election Assistance Commission will announce its choices to
fill the fourteen positions of the Technical Guidelines Development
Committee, which will be chaired by the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.  The Committee will develop
standards and make recommendations on electronic voting technology to
the Commission.  Congress' fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
Commission were only $1.5 million of the authorized $10 million.
Funding to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to do
work on e-voting technology standards, as directed by law, was also
decreased.  In fact, Congress cut overall funding to the agency by
estimates of as much as 14 percent, of which about 4 percent came from
the computer security research area.

At the beginning of this month, the Commission moved from temporary
office space with the Federal Election Commission to its own address
at 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005.

Help America Vote Act:


Federal Election Commission:


For more information about voting law, see EPIC's Voting Page:


[6] News in Brief


The Department of Justice has withdrawn its subpoena for abortion
records from New York-Presbyterian Hospital.  The agency was seeking
the records for its defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in a
trial taking place in the federal court for the Southern District of
New York.  The hospital had appealed the subpoena to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appeal was pending while the trial
was in progress.  By withdrawing its subpoena, the Justice Department
has cleared the way for closing arguments in the trial.  The New York
trial is one of three trials on the constitutionality of the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban taking place across the country.

For more information about medical records privacy, see EPIC's Medical
Privacy Page:



In passing the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003,
Congress directed the Federal Trade Commission to implement a
centralized source where individuals could obtain a free credit report
annually from each of the three nationwide credit reporting agencies.
In comments to the Commission, EPIC was joined by Professor Daniel
Solove in arguing that individuals should be able to use the source to
obtain credit reports without allowing credit reporting agencies to
resell their personal information.  The comments also attempt to limit
the credit reporting agencies' ability to claim that there are too
many requests, thus justifying a delay in delivery of the credit
report. Already under the law, the credit reporting agencies have a
full fifteen days to comply with a request for a report.  The comments
argue that no more delay is necessary, as the credit reporting
agencies regularly provide reports to retailers and other creditors
within seconds of making a request.

EPIC Comments on Free Credit Reports:


For more information about credit reporting, see EPIC's Fair Credit
Reporting Act Page:



EPIC and Privacy International recently held the 6th Annual U.S. Big
Brother Awards, which are bestowed upon government and private sector
organizations that have done the most to invade personal privacy in
the United States.  Instead of the trademark "boot on the head" golden
statue of previous years, the "winners" were given large rolls of red
tape to symbolize the growing frustration and delay individuals are
subjected to as a result of privacy-invasive security measures.  The
recipient of the "Perversion of Justice" award was Seisint for its
role in creating the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange
Program (MATRIX).  "The Bureaucratic Indifference" award went to the
Transportation Security Administration for its operation of the
"No-Fly" list, a database of individuals that is distributed to
airlines for purposes of stopping or searching suspected individuals.
Northwest Airlines was given the "Blurring the Borders" award for its
secret disclosure of passenger information to the government.
California Senator Liz Figueroa received the one honor of the evening,
the Brandeis Award, to honor her excellent work to protect and
champion privacy.

For more information about the awards, see the Privacy International
Big Brother Awards Page:



EPIC has published a new web page discussing the ethical and privacy
implications of nanotechnology.  The page was authored by University
of Pennsylvania law student Eva Gutierrez.  It traces the history of
nanotechnology, funding for the field, the ethical implications of the
technology, and privacy issues raised.  Nanotechnology has profound
potential for addressing environmental, health, and many other issues;
it also raises new environmental, health, and privacy risks.  Ms.
Gutierrez's previous work for EPIC focused on firearms privacy, and
her research highlighted the strong substantive and procedural
protections for privacy of gun owners.

EPIC's Nanotechnology Privacy Page:


EPIC's Firearms Privacy Page:


[7] EPIC Bookstore: MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country

MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country: How the Find Your Political
Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change, MoveOn.org (Inner Ocean
Publishing, Inc. 2004)


Launched several years ago in response to the Clinton impeachment,
MoveOn is an activist group that strives to engage ordinary people in
politics through electronic advocacy.  MoveOn recently expanded its
activism efforts to a more old fashioned medium -- paper -- when it
published its advocacy guide MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country:
How the Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change.

MoveOn asked its members to send in stories describing how they worked
to change the political landscape.  After receiving 2,500 narratives
of political action, MoveOn published 50 short essays from authors
ranging in age from 16 to 82, living everywhere from Maine to Hawaii,
all of whom share a passion for contributing to the political process.
Each essayist describes an effort that he or she undertook to connect
with others, encourage voter registration and turn out, harness the
power of the media, personalize the political process, or make the
political process personal.  MoveOn adds tips to each essay to help
readers successfully carry out that particular "way to love your

One of the essayists is EPIC Senior Policy Analyst Lillie Coney, who
worked with the Beaumont, Texas Get Out the Vote project in 1978 to
encourage the area's African-American community to vote in large
numbers.  By increasing voter registration and promoting awareness of
the population's voting strength, the project raised the number of
voters from one or two in each African-American household to as many
as six.  That year, voter participation among the African-American
population in Jefferson County, which includes several cities, rose
from averages between 26 and 47 percent to over 50 percent during the
primary, and almost 80 percent in the November general election.  As a
result, Lillie writes, "the once-ignored black vote became a symbol of
raw political power, with enough influence to determine the outcome of
critical local, state, and federal primary and general elections."

This guide to activism is full of stories like Lillie's, highlighting
work that brings transparency to the political process by offering
ideas for effective action.  This quick read provides inspiration and
direction for those who are dissatisfied with the state of politics
and want to change the situation, but aren't sure how or what to do.

These essays make clear that action is power.  As Al Gore says in his
essay, "Woody Allen has famously said that 90 percent of success is
showing up. That's true of democracy too.  I'd argue that the other 10
is making sure you're registered beforehand."

- Marcia Hofmann


EPIC Publications:

"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, International
Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2003

The "Physicians Desk Reference of the privacy world."  An invaluable
resource for students, attorneys, researchers and journalists who need
an up-to-date collection of U.S. and International privacy law, as
well as a comprehensive listing of privacy resources.

"FOIA 2002: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Mark Zaid, editors (EPIC 2002). Price: $40.

This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of the
Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the
Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  The 21st
edition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalists and
researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.  For those who
litigate open government cases (or need to learn how to litigate
them), this is an essential reference manual.

"Privacy & Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2002). Price: $35.

This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state of
privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world.  The survey
examines a wide range of privacy issues including data protection,
passenger profiling, genetic databases, video surveillance, ID systems
and freedom of information laws.

"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content
Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.

A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content
filtering.  These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering
threatens free expression.

"The Consumer Law Sourcebook 2000: Electronic Commerce and the Global
Economy," Sarah Andrews, editor (EPIC 2000). Price: $40.

The Consumer Law Sourcebook provides a basic set of materials for
consumers, policy makers, practitioners and researchers who are
interested in the emerging field of electronic commerce.  The focus is
on framework legislation that articulates basic rights for consumers
and the basic responsibilities for businesses in the online economy.

"Cryptography and Liberty 2000: An International Survey of Encryption
Policy," Wayne Madsen and David Banisar, authors (EPIC 2000). Price:
$20.  http://www.epic.org/bookstore/crypto00&

EPIC's third survey of encryption policies around the world.  The
results indicate that the efforts to reduce export controls on strong
encryption products have largely succeeded, although several
governments are gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats of
encryption to law enforcement.

EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free
expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at:

     EPIC Bookstore
     "EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books

[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

Innovation Law and Policy Colloquium.  Bell University Laboratories
Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, University of Toronto.  April
28, 2004.  Toronto, Canada.  Email rsvp.bul at utoronto.ca.

Fourth Annual Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit.  Future of
Music Coalition.  May 2-3, 2004.  Washington, DC.  For more
information: http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit04.

2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.  IEEE Computer Society
Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, in cooperation with the
International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR).  May 9-12,
2004. Oakland, CA.  For more information:

International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in a Global
Society.  Wessex Institute.  May 11-13, 2004.  Skiathos, Greece.  For
more information:

Global ICT Summit 2004: From Adversity to Success? The World's Best
e-Content & e-Creativity Experience.  World Summit Award, Global
Alliance for Bridging the Digital Divide, World Wide Web Consortium
Hong Kong, Internet Professionals Association, Hong Kong Cyberport,
and Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce.  May 11-14, 2004.  Hong
Kong.  For more information:

Access to Information 2004.  The Constitution Unit.  May 12, 2004.
London, England.  E-mail samantha.boyle at capita.co.uk.

Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security.
University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center.  May 13-14, 2004.
Minneapolis, MN.  For more information:

Critical Infrastructure Information: Conference on the Issues.
American University.  May 14-16, 2004.  Washington, DC.  Email
simpson at american.edu.

Freedom 2.0: Distributed Democracy.  Dialogue for a Connected World.
Electronic Privacy Information Center.  May 20-22, 2004.  Washington,
DC.  For more information: http://www.epic04.org.

Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies.  University of Toronto.
May 26-28, 2004. Toronto, Canada.  For more information:

RSA Conference 2004.  RSA Security.  May 31-June 1, 2004.  Tokyo,
Japan.  For more information:

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law:  New Developments & Compliance
Issues in a Security-Conscious World.  Practising Law Institute.  June
7-8, 2004.  San Francisco, CA.  For more information:

TRUSTe Symposium: Privacy Futures.  June 9-11, 2004. International
Association of Privacy Professionals.  San Francisco, CA.  For more
information: http://www.privacyfutures.org.

Access & Privacy Conference 2004: Sorting It Out.  Government Studies,
Faculty of Extension.  June 10-11, 2004.  University of Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.  For more information:

13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: The
Power of People & Technology.  June 11-13, 2004.  Seattle, Washington.
For more information: http://www2.ctcnet.org/conf/2004/session.asp.

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law:  New Developments & Compliance
Issues in a Security-Conscious World.  Practising Law Institute.  June
21-22, 2004.  New York, NY.  For more information: http://www.pli.edu.

PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, and
Content-Distribution Systems.  PORTIA Project.  July 8-9, 2004.
Stanford, CA.  For more information:

O'Reilly Open Source Convention.  July 26-30, 2004.  Portland, OR. For
more information: http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon.

First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam.  American Association for
Artificial Intelligence and IEEE Technical Committee on Security and
Privacy.  July 30-31, 2004.  Mountain View, CA.  For more information:

Crypto 2004: The Twenty-Fourth Annual IACR Crypto Conference.
International Association for Cryptologic Research, IEEE Computer
Society Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the Computer
Science Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara, CA. August 15-19, 2004.  For more information:

The Right to Personal Data Protection -- the Right to Dignity.  26th
International Conference on Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.
September 14-16, 2004.  Wroclaw, Poland.  For more information:

2004 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.  National Center
for Technology & Law, George Mason University School of Law.  October
1-3, 2004.  Arlington, VA.  For more information:

Subscription Information

Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:


Back issues are available at:


The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.

Privacy Policy

The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to
send notices about EPIC activities.  We do not sell, rent or share our
mailing list.  We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal
process seeking access to our mailing list.  We do not enhance (link
to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.

In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under
"subscription information."

About EPIC

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest
research center in Washington, DC.  It was established in 1994 to
focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper
Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical
record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.
EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act
litigation, and conducts policy research.  For more information, see
http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite
200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248

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:


Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and
First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the
right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of
encryption and expanding wiretapping powers.

Thank you for your support.

---------------------- END EPIC Alert 11.08 ----------------------