======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.09 May 13, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.09.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] FOIA Doc Shows Massive Disclosure of Passenger Data to FBI [2] Wiretap Reports Released; Secret Warrants Exceed Standard Warrants [3] Groups Ask California to Investigate Google's Gmail [4] EPIC Urges Opt-In Privacy for Wireless Devices [5] Commission Holds Hearing on E-Voting Technology [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: All The Laws But One [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] FOIA Doc Shows Massive Disclosure of Passenger Data to FBI ====================================================================== EPIC has received new information about Northwest Airlines' disclosure of passenger information to the government through Freedom of Information Act litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Most significantly, one document revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained one full year's worth of passenger data from Northwest after 9/11. The document reveals that the amount of personal data was so vast that the airline provided the data to the FBI on 6000 CDs. In an article based upon this new information, the New York Times confirmed that the Bureau acquired passenger data not only from Northwest, but from other U.S. air carriers, as well. Other documents turned over by NASA as a result of EPIC's lawsuit detail the agency's receipt and use of passenger data from Northwest. The agency also filed a "Vaughn index," which describes other documents the agency has withheld and states NASA's justification for not releasing the material. Additional information released by the agency shows that NASA researchers informed the Transportation Security Administration that NASA was using Northwest passenger data to conduct research on passenger screening systems. TSA expressed an interest in "understanding the NASA-NWA relationship." These e-mail messages (which have been withheld) "represent an exchange between NASA and TSA discussing areas of cooperation between the two government agencies on a new passenger screening system." The subject line of one e-mail message specifically references TSA's controversial second-generation Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, initiative. Further, after funding for NASA's passenger screening research was apparently discontinued, agency researchers in February 2003 "speculat[ed] as to whether any other program could use the [Northwest] data." One e-mail message "identifies other possible uses for the NWA data." An unreleased December 2002 e-mail message was sent "from the lead researcher discussing the advantages of the NWA database for future government research." Internal NASA e-mail mentioning Northwest's disclosure of passenger information to the FBI: http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa/nwa-fbi.pdf NASA's Vaughn index of withheld documents: http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa/vaughn-index.pdf For more information about Northwest's disclosure of passenger information, see EPIC's Northwest Data Disclosure Page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa For more information about air travel privacy, see EPIC's Passenger Profiling Page: http://www.epic.org//privacy/airtravel/profiling ====================================================================== [2] Wiretap Reports Released; Secret Warrants Exceed Standard Warrants ====================================================================== Two annual reports recently released by government agencies show that secret surveillance activity conducted by the United States has increased dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts reported that state and federal courts authorized an all-time high 1,442 interceptions of wire, oral and electronic communications in 2003, an increase of 6 percent over interceptions authorized in 2002. The agency also reported that federal officials requested 578 intercept applications in 2003, a 16 percent increase over those requested in 2002. No wiretap applications were denied last year. Further, the 2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Annual Report revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court granted 1724 applications for secret surveillance last year, more than in any previous year and nearly twice the number granted in 2001. The report shows that 2003 was the first year in which more secret surveillance warrants were granted than traditional "law enforcement" wiretap warrants, which are issued only under a more stringent legal standard. The report also reveals that a small number of applications for secret surveillance were denied in 2003 for the first time. The government is required by law to issue reports each year on the use of standard and foreign intelligence authority. The FISA Annual Report is infamously brief, typically only a few sentences. The PATRIOT Act significantly expanded the government's authority to make use of secret foreign intelligence surveillance, including in matters where an investigation is related to a law enforcement matter. The 2003 surveillance reports show that secret surveillance is now the most common form of surveillance used by the United States government. 2003 Wiretap Report: http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap03/contents.html 2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/2003_report.pdf For more information about traditional law enforcement surveillance, see EPIC's Wiretap Page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap For more information about secret surveillance, see EPIC's FISA Page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa ====================================================================== [3] Groups Ask California to Investigate Google's Gmail ====================================================================== EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the World Privacy Forum called upon the California Attorney General to investigate Google's Gmail service for violation of wiretapping laws. Gmail is a free webmail service that includes a gigabyte of storage for each subscriber. In order to offset the cost of this amount of storage, Gmail displays contextual marketing to the subscriber that is based on the actual content of the e-mail communication. The groups alleged that this targeting, based on the content of the communication, violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act, which requires the consent of all parties to a communication before it can be intercepted. The letter starts by recounting California's history of protecting privacy from threats posed by both government and the private sector. A California appellate court once noted: "That common experience makes it only too evident that personal privacy is threatened by the information-gathering capabilities and activities not just of government, but of private business as well. If the right of privacy is to exist as more than a memory or a dream, the power of both public and private institutions to collect and preserve data about individual citizens must be subject to constitutional control. Any expectations of privacy would indeed be illusory if only the government's collection and retention of data were restricted." Additionally, the letter notes that in passing an amendment to the state's Constitution, citizens were trying to address "the improper use of information properly obtained for a specific purpose, for example, the use of it for another purpose." The groups argued that Google fails to obtain the consent of all parties to e-mail communications when the company scans the content for marketing. In fact, there is no way that individuals can even know that directing e-mail to the gmail.com domain would result in the company extracting content from the messages. The groups addressed two of Google's arguments in defense of e-mail scanning. The company has argued that since a computer analyzes the content of communication rather than a person, there is no invasion of privacy. The groups responded by arguing that it is "nonsensical to conclude that computer scanning is per se less invasive than human scanning. Computers possess nearly unlimited storage, scanning, and associative capacity, therefore, they are able to perform the same invasions of privacy as humans, possibly more so, considering how more efficiently computers are able to process data and perform key word searches." Google has also compared its scanning of content for marketing to spam scanning. The groups responded that spam scanning can be considered to be actually necessary for providing e-mail service, whereas direct marketing based on content has never been considered necessary or even permissible. In April, thirty-one privacy and civil liberties groups called upon Google voluntarily to suspend Gmail. Group letter to the California Attorney General: http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/agltr5.3.04.html Coalition letter to Google requesting the suspension of Gmail: http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm ====================================================================== [4] EPIC Urges Opt-In Privacy for Wireless Devices ====================================================================== In comments to the Federal Communications Commission, EPIC argued for strong protections against "mobile service commercial messages" (MSCMs), or spam that is sent to wireless devices. The agency is considering enhanced protections for MSCMs as a result of language in the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, which preempted stronger state spam laws but called upon the Commission to develop heightened protections against MSCMs. EPIC emphasized that opt-in protections are necessary against MSCMs because wireless phones are considered personal by their users, because individuals often are charged for the bandwidth or on a per message basis for receiving wireless spam, and because adoption of wireless devices could be hampered if they become targets of relentless commercial interruption. EPIC argued that under the Commission's authority to regulate "autodialers," devices that store and dial phone numbers, the agency could place a flat ban on the sending of MSCMs without first obtaining the recipient's affirmative consent. Alternatively, the Commission could establish opt-in protections against MSCMs since Congress directed the agency to "provide subscribers to commercial mobile services the ability to avoid receiving mobile service commercial messages unless the subscriber has provided express prior authorization to the sender." The comments also argued that "affirmative consent" should be expressed in written form. Without a writing, senders of wireless spam will claim that the recipient consented to the MSCM, thereby requiring the recipient to prove that he didn't consent, which often is impossible. EPIC also noted that service providers should not be exempt from the opt-in rules. Service providers have set up difficult to use opt-out procedures, and AT&T once even engaged in market research to determine how to craft notices that recipient would ignore and thus fail to take action to protect their rights. EPIC's wireless spam comments: http://www.epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/wsspamcomm4.30.04.html ====================================================================== [5] Commission Holds Hearing on E-Voting Technology ====================================================================== On May 5 the U.S. Election Assistance Commission held its first public hearing on the use, security, and reliability of electronic voting systems. The Commission heard from witnesses representing technology, vendor, election administration, research/human interaction factors, and advocacy organizations who related their interests and concerns about the use of electronic voting technology. During the hearing, Chairman DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., stated that the Commission would probably not recommend requiring paper receipts when it makes preliminary recommendations, which may be made public within the next week. Further, he said that states would be allowed to set their priorities pertaining to the use of voting technology in the election year. It is estimated that about 20 states are considering legislation that would require a paper record of each vote cast on direct recording electronic voting machines, also known as touchscreen voting machines. The five participants on the vendors panel represented the largest of the electronic voting technology companies: Hart Intercivic, Diebold, Avante, Election Systems & Software, and Sequoia. Each representative except Avante's Founder and CEO spoke against the inclusion of paper ballots with DRE voting technology. However, most made it clear to the Commission that they were prepared to add the feature if it became a requirement. Although California recently decertified Diebold's voting technology from use in the November 4, 2004, general election, Diebold's director of marketing referenced Diebold equipments' performance in that state's recent elections as an example of how well the company's technology performs. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley offered testimony before the Commission on the election administrator panel in which he stated concerns regarding the certification process currently in place for electronic voting technology. Shelley reported that the State of California was denied access to status information regarding the certification of Diebold voting machines and was directed to seek answers to its questions from the company. State elections administration panelists were supportive of current electronic voting equipment design and opposed the inclusion of printers to produce a voter verified paper ballot. The work of the Commission has been greatly curtailed by a lack of funding. It received only $1.2 million of the $10 million authorized for its use in the Help America Vote Act. On May 12, the Commission went before Hill appropriators to request funding for the next fiscal year, scheduled to begin October 1, 2004. Chairman Soaries, appearing before the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasure, and Independent Agencies Committee, requested an extra $10 million for research so that the Commission could gather necessary data in order to assist the Commission in formulating recommendations on the administration of public elections. U.S. Election Assistance Commission: http://www.eac.gov U.S. Election Assistance Commission Hearing: http://www.eac.gov/ann_050504.asp National Committee for Voting Integrity: http://www.votingintegrity.org For more information about electronic voting, see the EPIC Voting Page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting ====================================================================== [6] News in Brief ====================================================================== VIDEO VOYEURISM BILL PASSES HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, S. 1301, has passed by voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee. Termed the "cell-phone camera snoop ban" in the media, this bill would prohibit image capture by any means, such as videotaping, photographing, and broadcasting, of certain parts of an individual's unclothed body without his or her consent. Specifically, it would ban the intentional image capture of an individual's naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in such body parts. Instances of such a reasonable expectation of privacy involve circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her image was being videotaped, photographed, filmed, broadcast, or otherwise recorded by any means; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her naked or undergarment-clad pubic area, buttocks, genitals, or female breast would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area. The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, which was referred to the House Committee after it passed the Senate in September, will make such an act a crime punishable by fine or up to a year in prison. Text of S. 1301: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.1391: E-VOTING SYSTEM IS BANNED IN CALIFORNIA California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley recently announced that the state has banned the use of any voting system that does not provide a paper ballot. Specifically, California has banned the use of touchscreen voting systems for use in state elections until security measures are in place to safeguard the November vote. The California March 2, 2004 primary election presented a host of problems to voters and election day workers, resulting in approximately 7,000 voters in Orange County receiving incorrect computer access codes to cast ballots. Poll workers unfamiliar with how the district's electronic voting technology worked made the error that resulted in voters receiving the wrong ballots to cast their votes. This experience closely followed the California Governor's recall election in October 2003, during which electronic voting machines supplied by Diebold were reported to have used uncertified changes to software. California Report "On the Investigation of Diebold Election System, Inc.": http://www.epic.org/redirect/ca_report.html California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley Press Release: http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/press_releases/2004/04_030.pdf COURT: STATE LAW VIOLATED BRAIN-DAMAGED WOMAN'S PRIVACY A Florida court has ruled that the State's Legislature and Governor Jeb Bush violated the due process and privacy rights of Theresa Schiavo by intervening to keep the severely brain damaged woman alive. Schiavo has been in a vegetative state for fourteen years and has become the center of an intense, emotional fight over end-of-life decisionmaking. After a court-appointed doctor determined that Schiavo had no possibility of recovery, her feeding tube was removed, sparking the Florida Legislature to pass "Terri's Law," which resulted in the Governor exercising a new power to intervene in the woman's case. Florida Sixth Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird ruled last week that "By substituting the personal judgment of the governor for that of the 'patient,' [Terri's Law] deprives every individual who is subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of his or her own medical decision. To preserve the promise of individual liberty and freedom, the Florida Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to be the master of his or her own personal private medial decisions. [Terri's Law] authorizes an unjustifiable state interference with the privacy right of every individual who falls within its terms without any semblance of due process protection. The statute is facially unconstitutional as a matter of law." The case highlights the need for awareness of "advance directives" or living wills that allow individuals to make end of life decisions privately before an accident or serious illness occurs. All fifty states have legislation recognizing the legitimacy of such directives, and information about them is available from the following sources. American Bar Association, " Shape Your Health Care Future with Health Care Advance Directives": http://www.abanet.org/ftp/pub/aging/adb.doc Partnership for Caring: http://www.partnershipforcaring.org STUDY FINDS CENSORSHIP OF WEB SITES AS SECURITY RISKS UNNECESSARY A study conducted by the Rand Corporation National Defense Research Institute has concluded that web sites currently censored as homeland security risks should be reopened. The censored web sites contain information about airports, power plants, military bases and other possible terrorist targets; however, the Institute found this information is freely available elsewhere and easily obtainable. The study identified a total of 629 databases accessible online and found that the restriction of just four of the databases would benefit homeland security, less than 1 percent of the total examined. According to the report, the remaining 559 databases "are probably not significant for addressing attackers' information needs and do not warrant any type of public restriction." Mapping the Risks: Assessing the Homeland Security Implications of Publicly Available Geospatial Information: http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG142 CANADA DROPS CENSUS DEAL OVER PRIVACY CONCERNS The Canadian government recently broke the second step of a three-phase agreement with the Canadian arm of United States-based corporation Lockheed Martin under which the company would have provided services for a 2006 national survey and mini-census. The government will not be penalized for breaking the final phase of the contract, which actually involved software for the 2006 national census. Numerous organizations had lobbied the government to drop the deal because of concerns about how individuals' private information could be used by a company closely linked to United States defense interests. The director of the 2006 census confirmed that the contract was terminated due to confidentiality and privacy concerns. For more information about privacy of census information, see EPIC's Census Privacy Page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/census COALITION CALLS FOR BETTER US-VISIT REDRESS POLICY EPIC recently joined twenty-nine privacy, immigration and civil liberties organizations urging the Department of Homeland Security to develop a straightforward redress policy for visitors to the United States who are adversely affected by the US-VISIT program, which tracks the entry and exit of visitors to the United States. In a letter to the agency noting the program's "enormous potential for error, invasion of privacy, and violation of international privacy laws and human rights standards," the coalition called for a redress procedure allowing for fair review and rapid appeals. The coalition also suggested that an independent evaluation of US-VISIT be conducted. Coalition letter on US-VISIT's redress procedure: http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visit/redress_letter.pdf For more information about the US-VISIT program, see EPIC's US-VISIT Page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visit PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL TO HOLD MEETING ON NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD Privacy International, in association with Liberty, Statewatch, Stand.org.uk and the Foundation for Information Policy Research, will host an event on May 19 entitled "Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's Proposed National Identity Card." Key figures in the fields of law, politics, security, technology and human rights will discuss the UK government's proposed identity card, which is likely to have far-reaching implications for everyone residing in the UK. The meeting will be held at The Old Theatre, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's Proposed National Identity Card: http://www.privacyinternational.org/conference/missingid ====================================================================== [7] EPIC Bookstore: All The Laws But One ====================================================================== William H. Rehnquist, All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (Knopf 1998). http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0679767320-0 At the beginning of the Civil War, Union troops traveling to Washington, DC to defend the nation's capital were attacked by angry mobs in Maryland. In the midst of these attacks, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, permitting the military to impose martial law on civilians and try them in military tribunals. When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney rebuked Lincoln for this action, the president commented that the Chief Justice's insistence upon preserving the writ of habeas corpus would allow "all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated." Lincoln, historically considered a champion of freedom and the rights of the man, subsequently curtailed many civil liberties for the duration of the conflict. In All The Laws But One, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, examines the history of civil liberties during wartime and discusses situations in which the executive branch suspended freedoms in the name of national security, sometimes without the approval of Congress and the courts. Beginning with Lincoln's measures during the Civil War, Rehnquist traces the nation's history of infringement upon civil liberties during times of conflict through the forced relocation of Japanese Americans to detainment camps during World War II. Rehnquist points out the excesses of civil liberties violations during wartime -- during World War I, for example, editorial cartoonists critical of the government's actions were prosecuted for sedition. But Rehnquist, long deferential to government interests, defends the curtailment of freedoms in some situations -- including, surprisingly, some cases of detention of Japanese-Americans in camps during the second World War. Rehnquist asserts that "It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peace time." But, the Chief Justice continues, "it is both desirable and likely that more careful attention will be paid by the courts to the basis for the government's claims of necessity as a basis for curtailing civil liberty. The laws will thus not be silent in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice." Rehnquist's words, written a few years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, offer hope that the Supreme Court and other courts may consider themelves a last defense for freedoms when the country is under duress, and are prepared to scrutinize heavily any infringement upon civil liberties. - 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. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2002 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. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2003 This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state of privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. The survey examines a wide range of privacy issues including data protection, passenger profiling, genetic databases, video surveillance, ID systems and freedom of information laws. ================================ "Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0 A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering threatens free expression. ================================ "The Consumer Law Sourcebook 2000: Electronic Commerce and the Global Economy," Sarah Andrews, editor (EPIC 2000). Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/cls The Consumer Law Sourcebook provides a basic set of materials for consumers, policy makers, practitioners and researchers who are interested in the emerging field of electronic commerce. The focus is on framework legislation that articulates basic rights for consumers and the basic responsibilities for businesses in the online economy. ================================ "Cryptography and Liberty 2000: An International Survey of Encryption Policy," Wayne Madsen and David Banisar, authors (EPIC 2000). Price: $20. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/crypto00& EPIC's third survey of encryption policies around the world. The results indicate that the efforts to reduce export controls on strong encryption products have largely succeeded, although several governments are gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats of encryption to law enforcement. ================================ EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at: EPIC Bookstore http://www.epic.org/bookstore "EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books http://www.powells.com/features/epic/epic.html ====================================================================== [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ====================================================================== Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security. University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center. May 13-14, 2004. Minneapolis, MN. For more information: http://www.dtc.umn.edu/weis2004. Critical Infrastructure Information: Conference on the Issues. American University. May 14-16, 2004. Washington, DC. Email simpson at american.edu. Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's Proposed Identity Card. Privacy International in association with Liberty, Statewatch, Stand.org.uk and the Foundation for Information Policy Research. May 19, 2004. London, England. For more information: http://www.privacyinternational.org/conference/missingid. 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: http://petworkshop.org/2004. RSA Conference 2004. RSA Security. May 31-June 1, 2004. Tokyo, Japan. For more information: http://www.medialive.jp/events/rsa2004/eng/default.html. 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: http://www.pli.edu. 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: http://www.govsource.net/programs/iapp/conference/main.nclk. 13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: The Power of People & Technology. June 11-13, 2004. Seattle, WA. For more information: http://www2.ctcnet.org/conf/2004/session.asp. Knowledge Held Hostage? Scholarly Versus Corporate Rights in the Digital Age. Annenberg Public Policy Center and Rice University in association with Public Knowledge and the Center for Public Domain. June 18, 2004. Philadelphia, PA. For more information: http://www.knowledgehostage.org. 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. Managing the Privacy Revolution 2004: New Challenges, New Strategies, New Dangers. Privacy & American Business. June 22-24, 2003. Washington, DC. E-mail info at pandab.org. PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, and Content-Distribution Systems. PORTIA Project. July 8-9, 2004. Stanford, CA. For more information: http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/workshop.html. 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: http://www.ceas.cc. 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: http://www.iacr.org/conferences/crypto2004. 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: http://www.giodo.gov.pl/252/j/en. 2004 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. National Center for Technology & Law, George Mason University School of Law. October 1-3, 2004. Arlington, VA. For more information: http://www.tprc.org/TPRC04/call04.htm. ====================================================================== Subscription Information ====================================================================== Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface: https://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/epic_news Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier. ====================================================================== Privacy Policy ====================================================================== The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." ====================================================================== About EPIC ====================================================================== The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at: http://www.epic.org/donate Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and expanding wiretapping powers. Thank you for your support. ---------------------- END EPIC Alert 11.09 ---------------------- .