EPIC logo

                          E P I C  A l e r t
Volume 12.03                                         February 10, 2005

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


Table of Contents

[1] Federal Budget Boosts Surveillance Spending
[2] EPIC Urges End to RFID Tracking of Schoolchildren
[3] Homeland Security Issues Privacy Report; Questions Remain
[4] EPIC Pushes for Transparency of Passenger Privacy Advisory Group
[5] EPIC Supplements Commercial Data Broker Complaint
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Federal Budget Boosts Surveillance Spending

President Bush's proposed $2.57 trillion federal budget for fiscal
year 2006 greatly increases the amount of money spent on surveillance
technology and manpower while cutting about 150 programs, many from
the departments of health, education, farming, housing and the

The Department of Homeland Security would receive $41.1 billion, an
almost 7% increase in its budget.  Homeland Security wants $847
million to create the Office of Screening Coordination and Operations,
which would oversee vast databases of digital fingerprints and
photographs, eye scans and personal information from millions of
Americans and foreigners.  This office would be responsible for United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)
(this gets about $390 million of the $847 million), Secure Flight and
Crew Vetting ($94 million), Free and Secure Trade ($7 million),
NEXUS/Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection ($14
million), Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) ($244
million), Registered Traveler ($22 million), Hazardous Materials
Trucker Background Checks ($44 million), and Alien Flight School
Checks ($10 million).  The last $20 million of the $847 million budget
would go to the Transportation Security Administrations's
"Credentialing Start-up."

According to the budget, "the mission of the proposed Office of
Screening Coordination and Operations (SCO) is to enhance the
interdiction of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism by
streamlining terrorist-related screening by comprehensive coordination
of procedures that detect, identify, track, and interdict people,
cargo and conveyances, and other entities and objects that pose a
threat to homeland security."  The budget goes on to say that "the SCO
would produce processes that will be effected in a manner that
safeguards legal rights, including freedoms, civil liberties, and
information privacy guaranteed by Federal law."  It is unclear,
however, what steps the office intends to take to protect these

Homeland Security also wants $73.3 million for cybersecurity; $20
million for the Border Patrol, a part of Customs and Border
Protection, for sensor, communication and video surveillance
capabilities along borders; $51.1 million for America's Shield
Initiative, which enhances electronic surveillance capabilities along
U.S. borders; and $3 million for "a system that captures biometric and
biographical information with a '10 Print' fingerprint reader, and
computer based facial imagery of foreigners entering the U.S."  This
system "is now operational at all Border Patrol stations, every air
and seaport of entry, and the 50 busiest land ports of entry."

Under the proposed budget, the FBI will receive $555 million - an
increase of 11% from 2005 and 76% from 2001.  Of that, the FBI will
spend $9.9 million and have 80 positions that enhance its surveillance
capabilities.  This significant increase in FBI funding comes just a
week after a report by an Inspector General found that the agency's
poor planning and bad management were the main reasons that the FBI
will have to abandon a $170 million computer upgrade.  The FBI
acknowledged in January that the software for the system is already

The National Science Foundation would receive $5.6 billion, which
includes a 2.4 percent increase in research funding, but a decrease in
its education budget.  The budget specifically provides $94 million in
funding for research related to cybersecurity; $803 million for
projects in networking and information technology, including advanced
computing and information-management technologies; and $344 million
for nanotechnology research.

Last month, foundation director Arden Bement told the National
Journal's technology daily that the foundation research priorities
follow those that are set out by the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and Office of Management and Budget.  "You'll find
activities throughout our whole program reflecting those priorities,"
he said to the National Journal.  Those priorities included homeland
security research and development, nanotechnology, and networking and
information technology research and development.

This continues a dramatic shifting in the research priorities of the
traditional science organizations, such as the National Science
Foundation, toward new surveillance technologies.  In Last October,
EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg joined other recipients of the
Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in an
open letter warning about this shift in research priorities.

While expressing support for new technologies that will identify
dangerous substances, the letter said that left unchecked, the
consequence of this shift in research priorities "could be the
adoption of systems of mass surveillance unrelated to any terrorist
threats.  This will give the government sweeping new capability to
monitor private life and thus diminish the freedom and liberty of
Americans."  The letter stressed that privacy and civil liberty
concerns must be addressed in the early phases of research and made a
priority throughout implementation.  The letter was accompanied by a
brief survey of technology programs currently funded by the federal
government, including US-VISIT, the Multi-State Anti-Terrorism
Information Exchange  (MATRIX) and other data mining and mass
surveillance initiatives.

For more information on government surveillance funding, visit EPIC's
Federal Spending on Surveillance Page:


The Government Printing Office's web page on the Fiscal Year 2006


Department of Homeland Security's Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2006:


Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2006 Budget request press release:


The Oct. 16, 2004, open letter and report from the Norbert Wiener
Award winners:


For more information about aviation security initiatives, visit EPIC's
Passenger Profiling Page:


[2] EPIC Urges End to RFID Tracking of Schoolchildren

EPIC, in a joint letter with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and
the ACLU of Northern California, urged the Board of the Brittan School
in Sutter, Calif., to terminate an experimental program that mandates
the use of RFID-enabled ID badges tracking children's movements in and
around the school for the main purpose of saving the four hours per
month teachers need to spend on roll call, but also for general
security reasons.

Radio frequency identification (RFID) is a type of automatic
identification system that enables data to be wirelessly transmitted
by portable tags to readers that process the data according to the
needs of a particular application.  Today, major uses of RFID include
supply chain management, animal tracking, and electronic roadway toll
collection.  The data transmitted by the tag provides identification
and location information.  The RFID readers are connected to computer
networks, facilitating the transfer of data from the individual tagged
to databases and software applications that allow objects to be
continually located and tracked through space.

In the case of Brittan School, the RFID device transmits tracking
information to a computer on campus whenever a student passes under
one of the scanners.  The ID badges also include the student's name,
photo, grade, school name, class year and the four-digit school ID
number.  Students are required to prominently display the badges by
wearing them around the neck at all times.

The joint letter argues that the monitoring of children with RFID tags
is comparable to the tracking of cattle, shipment pallets, or
dangerous criminals in high-security prisons.  Using this extensive
inventory-like tagging is demeaning to children, regardless of age,
and creates an atmosphere of disrespect for, and distrust of,
students.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the
United States, protects dignity as an essential component of a human
being and a condition for freedom and equality.  The RFID badges, the
letter continues, also jeopardize the safety and security of students
by broadcasting their identity and location information to anyone with
a chip reader.  The RFID badges will make it much easier for anyone,
not only school officials, to target and find Brittan schoolchildren,
both at school and in the community at large.  Forcing children to
wear badges around their necks displaying their personal information
also exposes them to potential discrimination since the name of their
school may disclose their religious beliefs or social class.

The badges also seem to be a solution in search of a problem since
there appears to be no history of either security or attendance
problems in the school.  Security experts have argued that using RFID
technologies to track schoolchildren does not adequately answer
school-related security concerns such as limiting the risk of
kidnapping or preventing the entry of strangers on school grounds. 
The security gained, they say, is not worth the money spent and the
privacy and dignity lost.  The goal of making children safer could be
achieved by spending the money elsewhere, from education programs for
children and their parents, to the hiring of school guards.

Press release:


EPIC-ACLU-EFF joint letter to the Brittan School Board:


For more information about how RFIDs affect children, visit EPIC's
Children and RFID Systems Page:


[3] Homeland Security Issues Privacy Report; Questions Remain

The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office has released its
first annual report to Congress.  The 112-page document surveys the
office's work from April 2003 to June 2004, discussing privacy policy
development, Privacy Act compliance, outreach, and other activities.

Among other things, the report notes the Privacy Office's involvement
in DHS's efforts to leverage the latest technology -- including
biometrics, radio frequency identification, and data mining -- in
aviation security, border control, and other Homeland Security
initiatives.  The report also states that the Privacy Office plans to
issue a report "assessing the benefits and deficiencies" of the
Multi-State Antiterrorist Information Exchange (MATRIX), which has
benefited from DHS's support.

The report notes several accomplishments, including implementing the
US-VISIT privacy program, developing an extensive privacy training
initiative within DHS, and forging relationships with international
data protection and privacy officials.  The Privacy Office also states
that DHS closed approximately 24,000 Privacy Act requests in fiscal
year 2003.

The report fails, however, to address the Privacy Office's
effectiveness in pursuing privacy complaints.  The office has no
authority to issue subpoenas and must depend on voluntary cooperation
to conduct its investigations.  This limitation has hampered the
office's ability to identify and correct violations of federal privacy

For example, a November 2003 email obtained by EPIC under the Freedom
of Information Act shows the Privacy Office had difficulty gathering
information for its investigation of the Transportation Security
Administration's role in the transfer of JetBlue Airways passenger
data to a Defense Department contractor.  Noting that "information has
not been forthcoming" in response to internal inquiries, Chief Privacy
Officer Nuala O'Connor Kelly wrote, "we're getting better information
from outside than we have from our own folks at this time."

TSA's reluctance to provide information ultimately affected the
accuracy of the Privacy Office's findings.  The office stated in its
February 2004 report on the incident that TSA "separately sought data
from several airlines for the purpose of testing CAPPS II [a
now-defunct passenger profiling program], and, that while initially
several airlines expressed interest in sharing data, these offers were
later rescinded."  Just two months later, American Airlines admitted
that more than a million passenger records had been disclosed at TSA's
request to several companies vying for TSA contracts.

The Privacy Office has announced that it is investigating TSA's role
in the disclosure of American Airlines passenger records.  However,
nearly ten months after the transfer first came to light, no findings
have been released.

Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office Report to Congress:


Email from Nuala O'Connor Kelly obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act:


The Homeland Security Privacy Office Report to the Public on Events
Surrounding the JetBlue Data Transfer:


[4] EPIC Pushes for Transparency of Passenger Privacy Advisory Group

In a January 31 letter to the Transportation Security Administration's
privacy officer, EPIC asked why the recently formed Secure Flight
Privacy/IT Working Group is not being operated in accordance with
federal law intended to ensure transparency of government advisory

The working group, which began meeting in January, is tasked with
providing an objective, independent evaluation of the technical and
privacy elements of Secure Flight, the passenger prescreening
initiative currently under development by TSA.  According to the
agency, Secure Flight will compare Passenger Name Records against
information compiled by the Terrorist Screening Center, which will
include expanded "selectee" and "no fly" lists.  TSA will also try to
identify "suspicious indicators associated with travel behavior" in
passengers' itinerary data, and plans to test the use of commercial
databases to verify the accuracy of information provided by travelers.

Despite the working group's important mission, neither the formation
of the group nor the times and places of its meetings has ever been
publicly announced.  EPIC noted in its letter that these omissions
appear to violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires
that entities such as the working group operate transparently.  Among
other things, the law requires such groups to publish notices of their
meetings in the Federal Register; conduct open meetings unless certain
specific circumstances exist, determinations of which must be
published; and make their documents -- including reports, transcripts
and minutes -- available for public inspection, subject to the
exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act.  "EPIC has urged TSA,
since the earliest days of its existence, to develop aviation security
policies and initiatives in an open and public manner," EPIC stated.
"Given the clear privacy implications of the Secure Flight program ...
and the obvious public concern surrounding a system that will conduct
background checks on tens of millions of citizens, we believe it is
critical that any assessments of Secure Flight be made in an open

EPIC asked TSA to explain why it does not consider the working group
to be governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and requested
the agency's position on whether it believes the group's documents are
subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.  Though
EPIC asked for an answer within ten days, the agency has not yet
responded.  EPIC is considering its next steps.

Letter from EPIC to the Transportation Security Administration Privacy


For more information about passenger prescreening efforts, visit
EPIC's Passenger Profiling Page:


[5] EPIC Supplements Commercial Data Broker Complaint

In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, EPIC supplemented an
earlier filing requesting an investigation into commercial data
brokers such as Choicepoint.  Commercial data brokers act as a type of
federal data center; they collect personal information on individuals
and sell it to businesses and the government while affording the
individual few rights to ensure that the data is accurate or used in
responsible ways.  In December 2004, EPIC Associate Director Chris
Hoofnagle and George Washington Law Professor Daniel J. Solove argued
in a filing to the FTC that these organizations most likely are
subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and if they are not, that
they should be subject to the law.

The supplemental letter raises three additional issues relevant to the
rise of commercial data brokers.  First, an article written by Robert
O'Harrow Jr. of the Washington Post quoted Choicepoint representatives
saying that the company acts like an "intelligence agency" and that
the data industry should be subject to new regulations because of how
personal information is being used.  O'Harrow's article demonstrated
the reliance on commercial data brokers for decision-making, and the
growing importance that the brokers' data be accurate and their
practices accountable to the public.

Second, the letter included a dialogue from Declan McCullagh's
Politechbot.com mailing list concerning the December 2004 complaint. 
A list message from a private investigator who uses Choicepoint noted
that the company maintains an audit trail of clients who access
personal information.  The EPIC letter points out that law enforcement
users are not subject to the audit trails, and that EPIC is unaware of
a single case where a commercial data broker has turned in a user for
prosecution as a result of an audit showing prohibited use of the

Last, the letter included a transcript of a recent television
broadcast, "Someone's Watching," that aired on Dec. 18, 2004, on the
Discovery Times Channel.  The broadcast shows two private
investigators using a commercial data broker to access a stranger's
Social Security Number, employment details, and other information
without any legal justification.

EPIC will continue to pursue this matter, as commercial data brokers
pose new risks to privacy unforeseen by the architects of the federal
Privacy Act and other privacy laws.

EPIC update to the complaint to the Federal Trade Commission:


For more information about Choicepoint, visit EPIC's Choicepoint Page:


[6] News in Brief


The Department of Homeland Security has announced that it will test
the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology within the
US-VISIT program, which tracks visitors entering and leaving the
United States.  The agency envisions RFID tags could be used to assign
visitors unique identifiers that are linked to their digital
fingerprints and other personal data within the vast US-VISIT
information network.  The RFIDs would allow US-VISIT to automatically
track visitors' entries into and exits from the United States at the
land borders.  The agency plans to begin testing the use of RFID in
US-VISIT this spring.

For more information about radio frequency identification, visit


For more information about US-VISIT, visit EPIC's US-VISIT Page:



Telemarketers used an unnamed data broker to identify poor Americans,
then they bilked tens of millions of dollars from those victims,
according to a complaint unsealed in federal district court.  Data
brokers sell lists of individuals meeting certain criteria (high
income, certain interests, etc.) in order to target people for
telemarketing or junk mail.  In this case, Canadian police arrested 28
people engaged in a Montreal-based telemarketing operation that
targeted people with bad credit ratings for credit cards.  According
to the complaint, instead of sending a card, the telemarketers
automatically withdrew $300 from the victims who signed up and then
sent them general materials on debt consolidation.  One of the
defendants arrested was the former vice president of HSBC bank in

Complaint in US v. Pinsky et al.


Press release in U.S. v. Pinsky et al.


For more information about commercial targeting of consumers, visit
EPIC's Consumer Profiling Page:



The House is likely to pass today the REAL ID bill, sponsored by
Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wisc.).  Rep.
Sensenbrenner's bill would require states verify that all applicants
for driver's licenses are American citizens or are living in the
country legally.  According to the National Immigration Law Center,
ten states permit undocumented people to have driver's licenses.  The
Sensenbrenner bill requires that states comply within three years, or
their licenses could not be used for federal identification purposes
such as boarding airlines or entering federal buildings.  Also, the
bill includes provisions that would make it easier to reject asylum
claims; opponents argue the measures would reduce the chances of
legitimate seekers to obtain asylum.  The bill is expected to pass the
House, but face difficulty in the Senate, where several Republicans
have said they want it considered as part of a broader immigration

For more information about standardized driver's licenses and national
identification systems, visit EPIC's National ID Card Page:



Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have discovered serious
security flaws in the radio frequency identification (RFID) chips
which are used to protect cars from theft and prevent fraudulent use
of Speedpass keys.  The research shows that even RFID systems
considered to be secure remain vulnerable, which only highlights the
need to prioritize analysis of privacy and security prior to
implementation of RFID technology.  The potential for exploitation of
the security deficiencies serves as a warning to all industries and
governments that would hastily assemble RFID enabled systems in order
to identify or track people as they cross borders.

Analysis of the Texas Instruments DST RFID:


For more information about radio frequency identification, visit



One of John Ashcroft's last acts as attorney general was to announce
that DNA samples now will be collected from everyone convicted of a
felony under federal law.  Previously, only those convicted of a
specific list of crimes were subject to mandatory DNA sampling. This
interim rule is being implemented under a section of the 2004 Justice
for All Act.  Nearly 40 states authorize DNA collection from all

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



The United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance has published
an initial set of issue papers.  They are the first in a series of
"draft working papers" prepared by the diverse and global Working
Group membership. They reflect the preliminary findings of various
drafting teams, and include papers on privacy, cybercrime,
intellectual property, and network security.  The papers are published
both to transparently show the ongoing work of the Working Group and
for the membership to seek public comment.  Any interested
stakeholders may comment using the template available at the working
group site.

Working Group on Internet Governance:


News on civil society involvement in the Working Group on Internet
Governance is available at the Public Voice web site:



The National Association of Secretaries of State held their Annual
Winter Conference in Washington, DC.  The meeting presented an
opportunity for Secretaries of State from around the nation to meet
and discuss issues that are related to their work in administering
state election laws, securities regulation, and business filings.

The meeting participants voted to dissolve the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission after the 2006 federal general election. This
vote has no bearing on the agency, but it is important to note that
state and local election administrators, some of which are members of
NASS, serve on the boards and committees of the EAC in policymaking
roles.  The EAC was established to manage the payment of federal funds
to states for the purpose of updating voting technology, election
worker training and voter education.  The authorizing legislation
established the EAC's existence until 2006 unless Congress acts to
extend its life.

The 39 members of NASS who serve as their state's chief elections
officers also issued a statement about administering elections in a
non-partisan manner.  The statement did not renounce the practice by
some election administrators to take active partisan positions or
roles in the election contest that they are responsible for
administering.  NASS also issued a statement rejecting any efforts by
Congress to conduct further election reform.

National Association of Secretaries of State statement on the Election
Assistance Commission:


National Association of Secretaries of State election officials'
statement on election administration:


Election Assistance Commission's web page on its Standards and
Advisory Boards:


National Committee for Voting Integrity:


For more information about voting standards, visit EPIC's Voting Page:


[7] EPIC Bookstore: FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus

David A. French, Greg Lukianoff, Harvey A. Silverglade, FIRE's Guide
to Free Speech on Campus (Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education 2005).


"Written by FIRE President David A. French, FIRE Director of Legal and
Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff, FIRE Co-founder and Director Harvey A.
Silverglade, the Guide explores the philosophy and history behind our
modern understanding of free speech, discusses the development of law
regarding free speech and the First Amendment, and elaborates on the
moral and practical values that form the foundations of liberty.
Perhaps most importantly, the Guide equips students with the
rhetorical and legal tools to stand up for their rights.  The Guide
relies on examples from many of FIRE's successful defenses of liberty
to let students know that they can fight and win battles with
university administrators."

"FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus is the fourth in FIRE’s series
of Guides to Student Rights on Campus, which also includes FIRE’s
Guide to Due Process and Fair Procedure on Campus, Guide to Student
Fees, Funding and Legal Equality on Campus, and Guide to Religious
Liberty on Campus.  A fifth volume, FIRE's Guide to First-Year
Orientation and Thought Reform on Campus, will be released next year.
Paperback copies of all of the Guides are available to college
students free of charge and to the general public at a nominal costs
through thefireguides.org.  Electronic editions are also available for
free download in PDF format at thefireguides.org."


EPIC Publications:

"Privacy & Human Rights 2004: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2004). Price: $35.

This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state of
privacy in more than sixty 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.


"FOIA 2004: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Tiffany Stedman, editors (EPIC 2004). Price:
$40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004

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 22nd
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.


"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.

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, as well as 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 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.


"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

14th Annual RSA Conference.  RSA Security.  February 14-18, 2005.  San
Francisco, CA.  For more information:

The World Summit on the Information Society PrepCom 2.  February
17-25, 2005.  Geneva, Switzerland.  For more information:

3rd International Conference of Information Commissioners.  Federal
Institute of Access to Information.  February 20-23, 2005.  Cancun,
Mexico.  For more information:

The Concealed I: Anonymity, Identity, and the Prospect of Privacy.  On
the Identity Trail and the Law and Technology Program at the
University of Ottawa.  March 4-5, 2005.  Ottawa, Canada.  For more
information: http://www.anonequity.org/concealedI.

The Health Information Technology Summit West. eHealth Initiative.
March 6-8, 2005.  San Francisco.  For more information:

IAPP National Privacy Summit 2005.  International Association of
Privacy Professionals.  March 9-11, 2005.  Washington, DC.  For more
information:  http://privacyassociation.org.

O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference.  March 14-17, 2005.  San
Diego, CA.  For more Information:

Policy Options and Models for Bridging Digital Divides: Freedom,
Sharing and Sustainability in the Global Network Society.  March
14-15, 2005.  Project on Global Challenges of eDevelopment, Hypermedia
Laboratory, University of Tampere.  Tampere, Finland.  For more
information: http://www.globaledevelopment.org/forthcoming.htm.

2005 National Freedom of Information Day Conference.  First Amendment
Center.  March 16, 2005.  Washington, DC.  For more information:

7th International General Online Research Conference.  German
Society for Online Research.  March 22-23, 2005.  Zurich, Switzerland.
For more information: http://www.gor.de.

The 2005 Nonprofit Technology Conference.  Nonprofit Technology
Enterprise Network.  March 23-25, 2005.  Chicago, IL.  For more
information: http://www.nten.org/ntc.

The Global Flow of Information Conference 2005.  Information Society
Project at Yale Law School. April 1-3, 2005. New Haven, CT. For
more information:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/GlobalFlow/registration.htm. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Meeting. April 4-8, 2005. Mar del Plata, Argentina. For more information: http://www.icann.org. VoIP World Africa 2005. April 5-7, 2005. Terrapinn. Johannesburg, South Africa. For more information: http://www.terrapinn.com/2005/voipza/confprog.stm. CFP2005: Fifteenth Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy. April 12-15, 2005. Seattle, WA. For more information: http://www.cfp2005.org. 2005 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Security and Privacy in cooperation with The International Association for Cryptologic Research. May 8-11, 2005. Berkeley, CA. For more information: http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2005/oakland05-cfp.html. SEC2005: Security and Privacy in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Technical Committee on Security & Protection in Information Processing Systems with the support of Information Processing Society of Japan. May 30-June 1, 2005. Chiba, Japan. For more information: http://www.sec2005.org. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Meeting. July 11-15, 2005. Luxembourg City, Luxenbourg. For more information: http://www.icann.org. 3rd International Human.Society@Internet Conference. July 27-29, 2005. Tokyo, Japan. For more information: http://hsi.itrc.net. PEP05: UM05 Workshop on Privacy-Enhanced Personalization. July 2005.
Edinburgh, Scotland. For more information:
5th Annual Future of Music Policy Summit. Future of Music Coalition.
September 11-13, 2005. Washington DC. For more information:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit05/index.cfm. The World Summit on the Information Society. Government of Tunisia. November 16-18, 2005. Tunis, Tunisia. For more information: http://www.itu.int/wsis. Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Meeting. November 30-December 4, 2005. Vancouver, Canada. For more information: http://www.icann.org. ====================================================================== 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 12.03 ---------------------- .