EPIC logo

        @@@@  @@@@  @@@  @@@@      @    @     @@@@  @@@@  @@@@@
        @     @  @   @   @        @ @   @     @     @  @    @
        @@@@  @@@    @   @       @@@@@  @     @@@   @@@     @
        @     @      @   @       @   @  @     @     @  @    @
        @@@@  @     @@@  @@@@    @   @  @@@@  @@@@  @   @   @
    Volume 9.04                                  February 27, 2002
                             Published by the
               Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
                             Washington, D.C.
Table of Contents
[1] Paying for Big Brother: Surveillance Funding in DOJ Budget
[2] Supreme Court Hears Anonymity Case; Rejects "Peer Grading" Privacy
[3] EPIC Seeks DC Surveillance Camera Records
[4] ICANN Reconsiders At-Large Participation
[5] Law Schools and EFF Form "Chilling Effects Clearinghouse"
[6] EPIC Bill-Track: New Bills in Congress
[7] EPIC Bookstore - Terrorism & the Constitution
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
[1] Paying for Big Brother: Surveillance Funding in DOJ Budget
The President's FY 2003 Budget Proposal requests a $1.8 billion
increase in funding for the Department of Justice, including
substantial spending on surveillance, profiling and information
sharing.  To increase public understanding and foster debate on the
proposed budget, EPIC has released a report entitled "Paying for Big
Brother: A Review of the Proposed FY2003 Budget for the Department of
The report, released today, draws attention to the levels of funding
that DOJ seeks for surveillance, the nature of the mechanisms
proposed, and the unanswered questions regarding the impact of DOJ's
proposal on privacy and civil liberties.  It analyzes the general
programs under DOJ's jurisdiction, as well as programs implemented by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the proposed new
National Security Coordination Council, the Detention Trustee, the
Counterterrorism Fund, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and the
U.S. Attorneys.
The report finds that for each organization under its authority, the
Department of Justice has thus far released insufficient information
about its programs to allow Congress or the public to evaluate them.
EPIC recognizes that the current climate has prompted a shift towards
more vigorous law enforcement and that intelligence and security
mechanisms must maintain some level of confidentiality.  However, it
is equally important for government actions in these areas to be
accountable, and for meaningful oversight to ensure protection of
privacy and civil liberties.  The EPIC report concludes that DOJ's
budget proposal does not provide adequate information about the nature
of its surveillance programs, the potential of the technology, the
extent of information sharing, or safeguards implemented to prevent
misuse or security lapses.
As discussed in the report, Congress has several opportunities in the
coming weeks to seek answers and explanations from the Department of
Justice, its subsidiary organizations and Attorney General Ashcroft.
EPIC urges lawmakers to make conscientious use of their oversight
function in evaluating DOJ's new surveillance proposals. 
EPIC's report is available online at:
Testimony of Attorney General Ashcroft before the Senate
Appropriations Committee, February 26, 2002:
Department of Justice Budget Information:
[2] Supreme Court Hears Anonymity Case; Rejects "Peer Grading" Privacy
On February 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Watchtower Bible
v. City of Stratton, a case that considers whether a registration
requirement for door-to-door canvassing to promote a cause violates
the First Amendment.  EPIC, the ACLU, and 14 legal scholars submitted
an amicus brief arguing that the ordinance implicates privacy, as well
as the First Amendment rights of anonymity, expression, and freedom of
During the argument, the Justices asked the attorney for Watchtower
Bible whether there was a real problem for the clients since the city
of Stratton routinely grants the request for a permit.  He responded
that the ordinance was an effort to discourage the Jehovah's Witnesses
and that the city should not restrict communications between willing
parties.  Justice Ginsburg asked whether the ordinance scheme in
Stratton was permissible after the Supreme Court's earlier decision in
Buckley v. ACLF.  In that case, the Court said petition circulators
could not be required to wear a name badge, but could be required to
provide identifying information when the petition is submitted to the
state secretary.  The Watchtower attorney replied that this procedure
was clearly necessary for the ensuring the integrity of the electoral
process, but would not be justified for core First Amendment activity.
The attorney for the City of Stratton came under repeated questioning
from the Justices about the scope of the ordinance.  Justice O'Connor
asked whether trick-or-treaters needed to first obtain a permit before
going door-to-door at Halloween.  She asked also whether she would
need permission from the mayor before asking a neighbor for a cup of
sugar.  Justice Scalia, following a lengthy series of questions about
the "remarkable scope" of the ordinance said that the City was
suggesting that ordinance was okay because "it only addresses
communication."  He objected to the characterization of in-person
communication in the Stratton permit application as a "privilege
desired."  Scalia also noted that "one of the costs of liberty is the
higher risk of unlawful activity."
An interesting line of questions was pursued by Justice Ginsburg, who
asked if the city had the ability to allow homeowners to designate
that they did not want Jehovah's Witnesses to knock on their doors,
and whether they also had the ability to request that only Caucasians
knock on their doors.  "How different," she asked, "is that from
saying 'No Jehovah's Witnesses?'"
The Court is expected to issue an opinion in the case sometime before
On February 20, the Supreme Court announced an opinion in Owasso
Independent School District v. Falvo.  In that case, the Court upheld
the practice of allowing one student to grade another's work, ruling
that the activity did not violate the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act.  The Supreme Court rejected Kristja Falvo's argument that
forcing children to have their grades read aloud in the classroom is a
violation of a 1974 federal law that guarantees the privacy of student
The Court also announced that next year it  will consider two more
cases of interest to the Internet community: the legality of posting
sex offenders' names online (Otte v. Doe) and whether Congress can
extend copyrights, a move that could result in thousands of classic
works becoming freely available via the Internet (Eldred v. Ashcroft).
Supreme Court - Watchtower Bible:
EPIC, ACLU, 14 Legal Scholars Amicus Brief:
Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo:
[3] EPIC Seeks DC Surveillance Camera Records
In response to news reports that the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) had constructed an extensive surveillance camera network in
Washington, D.C., EPIC has filed a series of Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests to learn more about the system.  The system allows
police to monitor surveillance cameras from around the city in a
central office called the "Synchronized Operations Command Center"
The system was assembled and activated with no public dialogue or
debate. Since its activation, the camera network has been used to
monitor individuals engaged in legitimate First Amendment activities,
including the participants in the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund protests in April 2000.  Basic questions regarding the
system -- such as the cost of the system and issues of access to data,
data retention, and data sharing -- remain unknown.
EPIC's request seeks information about the cameras, the policies on
their use, and future plans for expansion of the network.  The request
was directed to the MPD and federal agencies that have access to the
SOCC for monitoring.  The MPD has plans to link even more cameras to
the system, including cameras from private stores in Washington's
Georgetown neighborhood.
Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD) has expressed objections to the monitoring
network as well.  Rep. Morella chairs a House Government Reform
subcommittee that has oversight on DC policy, and has called for
hearings on the issue.
On February 26, the MPD announced that it had turned off twelve
cameras that monitored buildings in and around the National Mall.  The
cameras were deactivated with the close of the Olympic Games in Salt
Lake City, Utah and the end of the terror alert announced last month
by Attorney General John Ashcroft; however, the cameras could be
reactivated at any time.
EPIC Press Release on DC Surveillance Cameras:
EPIC Face Recognition Page:
Privacy International Video Surveillance Page:
[4] ICANN Reconsiders At-Large Participation
On February 24, Stuart Lynn, President and CEO of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), proposed a major
reorganization of the body's current governing structure following a
private retreat of board directors in Washington over the weekend.
Among other things, his proposed changes would substitute a 15-member
Board of Trustees for the current 19-member Board of Directors.  Five
of these seats would be given to national governments, five more would
be appointed by a "Nominating Committee," and the remaining five would
be made up of the chairs of three new Policy Committees, the chair of
a Technical Advisory Committee, and the CEO.  The plan would abolish
public (or "At-Large") elections of Board members, thereby eliminating
any role for the Internet user community in ICANN's decision making
As originally designed, the Board of Directors was supposed to
comprise nine elected At-Large members, nine representatives of the
internal Supporting Organizations (SOs), and the Chairperson.
Currently, however, only five of the nine At-Large seats are filled by
elected individuals with the remaining four occupied by interim,
unelected individuals.  In July 2000, a study committee (ALSC) was set
up to re-examine the entire At-Large issue.  In November 2001, the
ALSC issued a report calling for the reduction in the number of
At-Large Board seats from nine to six and payment of a membership fee
as a prerequisite to voting.  Both the ALSC report and Mr. Lynn's more
radical proposal for restructuring will be discussed by the Board in
an open forum with the public at the upcoming ICANN meetings in Accra,
Ghana, March 10-14, 2002.
Mr. Lynn's announcement is available at:
The ALSC report is available at:
The schedule for the Accra meetings is available at:
For commentary on these and other recent ICANN developments, also
visit the Internet Democracy Project at:
[5] Law Schools and EFF Form "Chilling Effects Clearinghouse"
On February 25, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and four law
school clinics announced the launch of a website and project that has
been established to educate Internet users about their rights online.
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse provides detailed information about
the legal rights of Internet users regarding "cease-and-desist"
letters (letters sent from entities claiming violation of copyright or
trademark and other grievances and threatening legal action if the
violating party does not cease and desist).  The project currently
provides basic legal information on issues like copyright and the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, trademark and domain names,
anonymous speech, and defamation.
The Chilling Effects website includes a forum for Internet users to
post their cease-and-desist letters to an online clearinghouse.
Students at the participating law clinics will review the letters and
annotate them with links to explain applicable legal rules.  The four
Internet law clinics currently involved are Harvard, Stanford, the
University of California at Berkeley, and the University of San
Francisco, and the project is expected to grow to include additional
law schools.
Posted letters will remain online in a searchable database that
interested parties can consult to find information that relates to
their particular situation.  "The Internet makes it easier for
individuals to speak to a wide audience, but it also makes it easier
for other people and corporations to silence that speech," said Wendy
Seltzer, Fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society,
who created the project and website. "Chilling Effects aims to level
the field by helping online speakers to understand their rights in the
face of legal threats."
Chilling Effects website:
EPIC's Free Speech Page:
[6] EPIC Bill-Track: New Bills in Congress
H.R.3716 Online Criminal Liability Standardization Act of 2002. To
amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a defense against
certain criminal prosecutions for interactive computer service
providers. Sponsor: Rep Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA). Latest Major Action:
2/12/2002 Referred to House committee: House Judiciary.
H.R.3726 Video Voyeurism Act of 2002. To amend title 18, United States
Code, to prohibit video voyeurism in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Sponsor: Rep Oxley,
Michael G (R-OH). Latest Major Action: 2/12/2002 Referred to House
committee: House Judiciary.
S.1928 To amend section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 to
require affirmative written consent by a customer to the release of
customer proprietary network information. A bill to amend section 222
of the Communications Act of 1934 to require affirmative written
consent by a customer to the release of customer proprietary network
information. Sponsor: Sen Wellstone, Paul D. (D-MN). Latest Major
Action: 2/11/2002 Referred to Senate committee: Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EPIC Bill Track: Tracking Privacy, Speech, and Cyber-Liberties Bills
in the 107th Congress, is available at:

[7] EPIC Bookstore - Terrorism & the Constitution
Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name
of National Security, by James X. Dempsey and David Cole. 2nd ed.
In Terrorism & the Constitution, authors Jim Dempsey (Deputy Director,
Center for Democracy and Technology) and David Cole (Law Professor,
Georgetown University) trace the history of abuse of civil liberties
in the name of national security, concentrating on the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the 1996 and 2001 Antiterrorism Acts.  Full of
endnotes valuable to activists and lawyers, yet written for a general
audience, Terrorism & the Constitution is a well-balanced examination
of the intersection between civil liberties and the level of security
necessary to protect our nation against terrorism.
Terrorism & the Constitution has been praised highly by Rep. John
Conyers, Jr., Gore Vidal, ACLU President Nadine Strossen, Arab
American Institute President Dr. James Zogby, and many more.  The new
edition is fully revised and updated for 2002, and includes a new
chapter on the response to September 11.
EPIC Publications:
"Privacy & Human Rights 2001: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments," (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state of
privacy in over fifty countries around the world.  The survey examines
a wide range of privacy issues including, data protection, telephone
tapping, genetic databases, ID systems and freedom of information
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2001: United States Law, International
Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2001).
Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2001/
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/crypto&/
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
2nd Annual BNA Summit: Combatting Cyber Attacks on your Corporate
Data. Bureau of National Affairs. February 27-28, 2002. Washington,
DC. For more information: http://cybersecurity.pf.com/

Rethinking Law & Marketing in the Age of Privacy & Security. Wiley
Rein & Fielding LLP. February 28, 2002. Redwood Shore, CA. For more
information: http://www.wrf.com/event/home.asp

Understanding Privacy: New Laws, New Challenges. BC Freedom of
Information and Privacy Association (FIPA). March 11-12, 2002.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. For more information:

HIPAA Summit West II: The Leading Forum on Healthcare Privacy,
Confidentiality, Data Security, and HIPAA Compliance. March 13-15,
2002. San Francisco, CA. For more information:

Eighth Annual National Conference, "Managing the NEW Privacy
Revolution," and First Annual Privacy Expo 2002. Privacy & American
Business and Privacy Council. March 20-22, 2002. Washington, DC. For
more information: http://www.ManagingThePrivacyRevolution.com/

Fourth Annual e-ProtectIT Infrastructure Security Conference. Norwich
University. March 20-22, 2002. Northfield, Vermont. For more
information: http://www.e-protectIT.org/

International Symposium on Freedom of Information and Privacy. Office
of the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner. March 28, 2002. Auckland, New
Zealand. For more information: Blair.Stewart@privacy.org.nz

Consumer Protection Issues in 2002 and Beyond. Association of the Bar
of the City of New York, Committee on Consumer Affairs. April 11,
2002. New York, NY. For more information: avernick@fgkks.com

The 27th Annual AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy:
Science and Technology in a Vulnerable World: Rethinking Our Roles.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. April 11-12,
2002. Washington, DC. For more information:

Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. April 14-15, 2002. San
Francisco, CA. For more information: http://www.pet2002.org/

CFP 2002: The Twelfth Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy.
April 16-19, 2002. San Francisco, CA. For more information:

4th Annual MIT Sloan eBusiness Awards. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Sloan School of Management. April 17, 2002. Cambridge, MA.
For more information: http://www.mitawards.org/home.asp

2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE and the
International Association for Cryptologic Research. May 12-15, 2002.
Oakland, CA. For more information:

INET 2002. Internet Society. June 18-21, 2002. Washington, DC. For
more information: http://www.isoc.org/inet2002/

Subscription Information
Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:

Subscribe/unsubscribe via email:
     To: epic_news-request@mailman.epic.org
     Subject line: "subscribe" or "unsubscribe"
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 email address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under
"subscription information".  Please contact info@epic.org if you would
like to change your subscription email address, or if you have any
other questions.
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,
e-mail info@epic.org, 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:

Drink coffee, support civil liberties, get a tax deduction, and learn
Latin at the same time!  Receive a free epic.org "sed quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?" coffee mug with donation of $75 or more.
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 9.04 -----------------------