You are viewing an archived webpage. The information on this page may be out of date. Learn about EPIC's recent work at

EPIC Alert 16.18

EPIC logo

                              E P I C   A l e r t
Volume 16.18                                         September 25, 2009

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


			"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."

Table of Contents
[1] EPIC Renews Calls for Release of Bush Warrantless Wiretap Memos
[2] MA Supreme Court Requires Warrant for GPS Tracking
[3] EPIC Pursues Accountability at Homeland Security Office
[4] EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Protect Prescription Data
[5] Cloud Computing Initiative Lacks Privacy Umbrella
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: "The Test of Our Times"
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
     - Join EPIC on Facebook
     - Privacy Policy
     - About EPIC
     - Donate to EPIC
     - Subscription Information

[1] EPIC Renews Calls for Release of Bush Warrantless Wiretap Memos

On September 15, 2009, EPIC and the ACLU urged a federal court to
order the government to release records and memoranda regarding the
NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that the existence of
the memoranda and significant portions of their content have already
been revealed in separate reports.

EPIC and the ACLU originally sought disclosure of any records
relating to the program in 2005, pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). However, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
argued that the records, including memoranda from the Office of Legal
Counsel, were exempt from FOIA's disclosure requirements. As
"national security information," "information exempted by other
statutes," and "inter- and intra-agency memoranda." Nonetheless, the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia was
unconvinced that the DOJ needed to withhold the documents completely
and commenced an in camera examination of ten memoranda on November
17, 2008.

Despite the DOJ's claimed need for secrecy, on July 10, 2009, the
government released an "Unclassified Report on the President's
Surveillance Program," prepared by the Offices of
Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of
Justice, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The IG Report
specifically identifies, extensively quotes from, and publicly
describes several of the OLC memoranda that the DOJ continued to
withhold from the FOIA request.

       In light of the disclosures in the Inspector General's Report,
EPIC and the ACLU filed a supplemental memorandum with the court
conducting the in camera review, arguing that the disclosure of
specific portions of the requested documents in the IG Report fatally
undermines the DOJ's claim that the OLC memoranda at issue had to be
withheld completely.  Thus, EPIC and the ACLU renewed their argument
that the memoranda or segregable portions of the memoranda should be
released to the public. The court has yet to reach a decision.

EPIC v. DOJ Filing

Inspectors General Unclassified Report:

New York Times 2005 Report on the NSA Program:

EPIC "Freedom of Information Act Work on the National
Security Agency's Warrantless Surveillance Program":

[2] MA Supreme Court Requires Warrant for GPS Tracking

On September 17, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed
down its decision in Commonwealth v. Connolly, ruling that using GPS
devices to monitor vehicles constitutes a seizure under the
Massachusetts Constitution and therefore may only be done under a
valid warrant. The court also required that these warrants expire
after fifteen days.  EPIC had filed a "friend of the court" brief
urging the justices to adopt this warrant requirement.

The case originated when the Massachusetts State Police began
tracking Everett H. Connolly, a Cape Cod resident who they suspected
of drug trafficking. After Connolly sold crack cocaine to an
undercover office, State Police installed a GPS device in his minivan
without his knowledge, but with a valid warrant. The device was
designed to report the location of the vehicle to the police
department at all times. Police computers stored this location
information.  By observing the data, officers determined that
Connolly was on his way back to his home after a trip to New York,
where police believed Connolly purchased cocaine. At that point,
officers stopped the van, conducted a search, and arrested Connolly
on the basis of cocaine found hidden in the vehicle.

Connolly appealed the validity of the search to the Supreme
Judicial Court, the highest court in the state of Massachusetts.
There, EPIC filed an amicus brief in favor of a warrant requirement
for such tracking. EPIC's brief provided the court with considerable
information about the history and function of GPS devices, as well as
about the current use of GPS tracking technology for law enforcement
and non-law enforcement purposes. EPIC's brief explained the risks
inherent in allowing such tracking without court oversight by the
government. It also explained the risks in such surveillance within
the private sector. Finally, it urged the court to insist on a
warrant requirement before allowing such tracking, a provision the
Commonwealth did not acknowledge as a prerequisite in its case
against Connolly.

The court's decision, while not perfect, did follow EPIC's
recommendation. The primary opinion, signed by all seven justices of
the court, found that the use of the device interfered with the
defendant's property rights and classified GPS tracking as a
"seizure" of that property for constitutional purposes. On this
reasoning, the court held that a warrant was therefore a requirement.
Three of the seven justices also participated in a concurring
opinion, which argued for a result much closer to EPIC's position:
that the invasion should also be characterized as a search, such that
conducting GPS tracking without a warrant would constitute a
violation of a defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

By requiring warrants for GPS tracking, the Supreme Judicial
Court has placed Massachusetts firmly on one side of the state split
on this issue. A Wisconson appeals court has ruled that GPS tracking
does not require a warrant, while earlier this year New York's
highest court ruled  in favor of a warrant requirement.

EPIC: Commonwealth v. Connolly:

Slip Opinion - Commonwealth v. Connolly

EPIC "People, Not Places, A Policy Framework for Analyzing
Location Privacy Issues":

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court:

[3] EPIC Pursues Accountability at Homeland Security Office

This week EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act appeal with the
Department of Homeland Security for the calendar of the Chief Privacy
Officer, Mary Ellen Callahan. EPIC submitted the original request in
June 2009 to find out why the DHS Privacy Officer could not meet with
privacy groups in Washington, DC.

In August, the agency turned over many pages from Ms. Callahan's
calendar, but most of the entries were blacked out as non responsive.
Because EPIC possesses several documents also possessed by DHS, EPIC
knows that DHS failed to disclose several responsive meetings. EPIC
is challenging DHS failure to disclose, as well as its wrongful
assertion of several FOIA exemptions.

In the appeal, EPIC said the agency has failed to comply with
FOIA and also cited the President's commitment to government
transparency concerning the activities of public officials. EPIC
reminded Ms. Callahan's office that she is required to comply with
the law and disclose the records.

In a related letter to the Chief Privacy Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security, EPIC asked when the annual privacy
report will be made available. The Department is required by law to
provide an annual report "on activities of the Department that affect
privacy, including complaints of privacy violations, implementation
of the Privacy Act of 1974, internal controls, and other matters."
The last privacy report was published in July 2008. EPIC has
previously sent similar letters to the Department, reminding the
agency of its legal obligation to inform the public about its

EPIC's FOIA Appeal to the Department's Chief Privacy Officer:

EPIC's Original FOIA Request to the Chief Privacy Officer:

EPIC "Open Government":

EPIC's letter to Ms. Callahan regarding the Annual Report:

The 2008 Privacy Office Annual Report:

EPIC's Prior Request for Annual Reports:

[4] EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Protect Prescription Data

EPIC filed a friend of the court brief in the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, urging the judges in IMS v. Sorrell to uphold
a Vermont law regulating companies that sell or use
prescriber-identifiable data for marketing. The Vermont law is aimed
at protecting public health, protecting the privacy of prescribers,
and containing prescription drug costs. It prohibits access to
prescriber-identifiable data unless physicians choose to opt in and
allow the release of such information.

Although several other states have also adopted statutes aimed at
protecting the privacy of prescribers and prescriber-identifiable
data, Vermont is the first to adopt a model that requires physicians
consent before outside parties can access information. The First
Circuit recently upheld as constitutional a New Hampshire statute
that blocks third parties' access to prescriber-identifiable data if
physicians opt out of disclosure. EPIC also submitted a friend of
the court brief in that case and supported the decision of the First

Several data-mining companies challenged the Vermont law in
district court. After the law was upheld, the datamining companies
appealed the decision to the Second Circuit. The datamining
companies argue that the law violates their First Amendment rights to
free speech. The district court held that the commercial speech at
issue could be limited, as the Vermont law's restrictions on data
disclosure were "in reasonable proportion to the State's interests."
The court did not reach the merits of the State's privacy claim.

EPIC's amicus brief supports the district court's conclusion that
the law is valid. The EPIC brief argues that Vermont has a
substantial state interest in privacy protection and that the data
miners' de-identification practices do not protect patient privacy.
The brief notes that in a method called "record linkage,"
prescription data can be re-linked to an individual's identity.
Because this information can easily be re-identified, EPIC argues,
the de-identification of data is no longer an adequate safeguard to
ensuring patient and prescriber privacy.

The Second Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments during the
week of October 12, 2009.

EPIC's "friend of the court" brief:

Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law:

First Circuit Decision in IMS v. Ayotte:

EPIC's "friend of the court" brief in IMS v. Ayotte:

District Court Opinion in IMS v. Sorrell:

EPIC "IMS v. Sorrell":

EPIC "IMS v. Ayotte":

[5] Cloud Computing Initiative Lacks Privacy Umbrella

Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra announced the launch of
"", a website where federal agencies can obtain cloud-based
IT services. Cloud computing allows data and applications to be
housed on centralized servers, so that they are accessible at any
time from anywhere, so long as the user has access to the internet.

The initiative is aimed at "lowering the cost of government
operations while driving innovation." Kundra notes that in the
current economic climate, "the federal government must buy smarter,"
and cloud computing is a response to the President's charge to ensure
"we are lowering the cost of govt operations, that we are finding the
innovative path, and that we are deploying solutions that are going
to be greener and better for the environment itself."

Currently, the administration's main goal is to increase the size
and scale of cloud computing, but key concerns, such as security and
privacy, have received little attention. In a speech given at NASA
Ames Research Center, Kundra "challenge[d] industry to step up and
address . . . security concerns [to] make sure that information and
data [are protected and secured]. Still, Kundra recognizes that
finding appropriate solutions to these concerns will not happen
overnight, but will take months or even years.

In March, EPIC filed a complaint with the Federal Trade
Commission urging the agency to open an investigation into Cloud
Computing services, such as Google Docs, to determine "the adequacy
of the privacy and security safeguards." Subsequently, thirty-eight
computer security researchers and privacy academics sent a letter to
Google's CEO, asking Google to uphold privacy promises made to users
of Google Cloud Computing services. The Commission's investigation is
ongoing; no response has been received from Google.

Vivek Kundra's Blog Announcement regarding

Vivek Kundra's Speech on Cloud Computing at NASA's Ames Research

EPIC's Federal Trade Commission Complaint Urging an Investigation
into Cloud Computing Services:

Letter to Google's CEO regarding Google Cloud Computing Services:

EPIC "Cloud Computing":

[6] News in Brief

Indiana Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the Indiana Voter ID law,
which requires certain individuals to present government-issued photo
identification before they could vote, violates the state
Constitution. The law is unconstitutional, the court held, because it
"regulates voters in a manner that is not uniform and impartial." The
United States Supreme Court previously ruled that the law did not
violate the federal Constitution, but did not address the law's
validity under the Indiana Constitution. EPIC and ten legal scholars
and technical experts filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in that
case, urging the Court to invalidate the law because of its disparate
impact and its reliance on REAL-ID, a "flawed federal identification

Indiana Court of Appeals Decision:

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board Supreme Court Decision:

EPIC's friend of the court brief for Crawford v. Marion County
Election Board:

EPIC "National ID and REAL ID Act":

California Moves to Strengthen Data Breach Laws

The California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 20, a bill
that would improve California's current security breach notification
law. Senator Joe Simitian said Senate Bill 20 "is designed to make a
good law better." Under current California law, a company that loses
unencrypted personal information must notify affected consumers of
the security breach. If signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate
Bill 20 would require that notifications include information that
helps consumers safeguard their privacy. The bill is one more example
of the many state efforts to address the growing problem of security
breaches. In May, EPIC testified in Congress on the need to improve
security breach notification.

California Senate Bill 20:

California Senator Joe Simitian's Announcement:

Federal Trade Commission to Host Privacy Roundtables

       Last week, the Federal Trade Commission held a meeting with
privacy advocates to discuss their "omnibus project," which involves
heightened efforts to implement new privacy initiatives and explore
the challenges regarding consumer privacy. The FTC introduced their
plan to host three roundtables focused on consumer privacy and
technology, the first to be held on December 7, 2009. The roundtable
discussions, which are open to the public, will focus on three
initial questions: (1) what risks, concerns, and benefits arise from
the collection, sharing, and use of consumer information; (2) are
there commonly understood or recognized consumer expectations about
how information concerning consumers is collected and used; and (3)
do the existing legal requirements and self-regulatory regimes in the
United States today adequately protect consumer privacy interests?
Parties interested in participating as a panelist at the next privacy
roundtable must submit a request to the Commission.

Federal Trade Commission's Exploring Privacy: A Roundtable Series:

Federal Trade Commission Press Release Announcing Privacy

Federal Trade Commission Privacy Initiatives Website:

Federal Trade Commission's Invitation to Comment:

EPIC's Page on the Federal Trade Commission:

Office of Legal Counsel Releases Memos on Einstein 2.0

On September 18, 2009, the Office of Legal Counsel released two
opinions regarding Einstein 2.0, the federal cyber-security
initiative that monitors network activity. The Bush administration
opinion, signed January 9, 2009, concluded that Einstein 2.0 complied
with the Constitution and applicable federal laws, provided that
users are properly warned that it is operating. The Obama
administration opinion, signed August 14, 2009, concurred with the
earlier opinion, and also concluded that the system does not violate
"state wiretapping or communications privacy laws," but EPIC has
argued that Einstein should be subject to the Privacy Act.  Also,
documents previously obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of
Information Act revealed that network monitoring tools often exceed
their legal authority.

Wikipedia Page on the Einstein Program:

Bush Administration Opinion:

Obama Administration Opinion: EPIC's Prior

Objections on Einstein:

EPIC "Carnivore":

Proposed Settlement in California Facebook Case

Facebook has entered into a proposed agreement to end Beacon, the
controversial advertising technique that broadcast user purchases in
their public profile. Previously, EPIC and other privacy advocates
objected to Beacon's privacy implications and successfully persuaded
Facebook to adopt opt-in for the service. Now, under the terms of a
class-action lawsuit in California, Facebook proposes to terminate
Beacon and contribute $9.5 million towards the creation of a
foundation dedicated to protecting online privacy. A class-action
lawsuit concerning Beacon is also pending in Texas.

Proposed Agreement:

Prior Objections to Beacon: EPIC's Page on

Texas Lawsuit: "Harris v. Blockbuster":

EPIC "Facebook Privacy": EPIC

EPIC Testimony on the "Impact and Policy Implications of
Spyware on Consumers and Businesses." (June 2008):

Internet Governance Forum - United States

The first Internet Governance Forum-USA will take place on
October 2, 2009 at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. The forum is intended to raise awareness about Internet
governance issues and to contribute to awareness about the Internet
Governance Forum.  The one-day forum will engage civil society,
government, technologists/researchers, industry and academia in
discussions about topics including management of critical Internet
resources, privacy, cyber security, access, openness/freedom of
expression, child online safety, capacity building and development.
By identifying and discussing issues, participants help to broaden
understanding and identify possible best practices that can inform
global decisions that affect the Internet.

Internet Governance Forum-USA Website:

Agenda for Internet Governance Forum - USA, Oct. 2, 2009,
Washington DC:

Internet Governance Forum Website:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: "The Test of Our Times"
The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege . . . And How We Can
Be Safe Again" By Tom Ridge with Lary Bloom

       "Do you remember the scene in the Batman movie The Dark Knight,
       where Morgan Freeman voices strong objection to eavesdropping on
       all of Gotham City in order to find and capture the Joker? He
       agrees to oversee the effort and vows to resign when he's finished.
       In Gotham, the end justifies the means. Not in the United States.
       The price is too high." (p.111)

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge remembers that
scene from the 2008 summer blockbuster, and when he evokes it halfway
through his new memoir, it is to convey why he felt some responses to
President Bush's warrantless wiretap program from those who did not
object to the government listening because they were doing no wrong
themselves "troublesome." Yet much of Ridge's book suggests
that he saw himself in that scene, a Morgan Freeman to the
President's Bruce Wayne.

Secretary Ridge paints himself as a sympathetic figure, a
principled public servant who did the best he could at a
near-impossible task. As he tells the story of the origins of the
Department of Homeland Security, he occasionally criticizes his
former colleagues, but more often paints them with a similar brush.
For instance, even while he clearly disapproved of the warrantless
program, he is sure to object only to the fact that the
Administration's decision to keep its legal analysis a secret
"presented an appearance of employing unauthorized power."

In a much-reported chapter entitled "The Politics of Terrorism,
Part 2," Ridge discusses two episodes in the run-up to the 2004
election. The first was when the team in charge of the scale agreed
to temporarily raise the threat level from yellow to orange for New
York City, Newark, and Washington, D.C. On August 1, just before
Ridge was to announce the increased level, the White House called and
asked him to add a few sentences, crediting the intelligence
information to "the president's leadership in the war on terror."
Ridge reports that agreeing to add the words is one of his few
regrets. The second episode was when a new video of Osama Bin Laden
appeared only days before the 2004 election. According to Ridge,
Attorney General John Ashcroft and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld pushed hard to raise the level, while he and FBI Director
Robert Mueller were strongly opposed. Eventually, the level was not
raised. He never goes so far as to say the drive to raise the level
was definitely political, but Ridge acknowledges the possibility.
This was too much for the Bush Administration's Morgan Freeman, and
he resigned soon after.

While much has been made of these passages, the rest of the book
tracks a similar theme. Ridge shows the post-9/11 world inside DHS
and the broader Administration as one in which the potential
consequences of failure were so great that its leaders were driven
not by power, or politics, but by fear.

--Jared Kaprove

EPIC Publications:

"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2008," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC
2008). Price: $60.

Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most
comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws.
This updated version includes new material regarding the substantial
FOIA amendments enacted on December 31, 2007. Many of the recent
amendments are effective as of December 31, 2008. The standard reference
work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under Freedom of
Information Act, Privacy Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Government
in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2008 volume is the 24th edition
of the manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on
for more than 25 years.


"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J.
Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98.

This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information
privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental
concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The
Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy
law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more.
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation
for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law.


"Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75.

This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an
overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over
75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections,
new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy.
Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy
and data protection ever published.


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

This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the
process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This
reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for
future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for
individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in the
WSIS process.


"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law,
and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price:

The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk
Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students,
attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy
law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full
texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as well
as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials include
the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the


"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.


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

EPIC Bookstore


EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of
interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the
Freedom of Information Act.

Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:

[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

"The Net will not forget," European conference on ICT and Privacy,
Copenhagen, Denmark, September 23-24, 2009. For more information:

"Secure Telework and Remote Access", Ari Schwartz, Telework Exchange
Town Hall Meeting, Washington, DC, September 24, 2009. For more

3rd International Conference "Keeping Children and Young People Safe
Online," Warsaw, Poland, September 29-30, 2009. For more information:

"6th Communia Workshop: Memory Institutions and Public Domain"
Barcelona, Spain, October 1-2, 2009. For more information:

Engaging Data Forum, MIT, October 12-13, 2009. For more information:

10th German Big Brother Awards, Bielefeld, Germany, October 16, 2009.
For more information:

eChallenges 2009, Istanbul, Turkey, October 21-23, 2009. For more

Big Brother Awards Switzerland, Zurich, Switzerland, October 24, 2009.
For more information:

3rd European Privacy Open Space, Vienna, Austria, October 24-25, 2009.
For more information:

Austrian Big Brother Awards Vienna, Austria, October 25, 2009. Deadline
for nominations: 21 September 2009. For more information:

Free Culture Forum: Organization and Action, Barcelona, Spain, October
29 - November 1, 2009. For more information:

Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit, Gothenburg, Sweden, November
13-15, 2009. For more information:

3rd European Privacy Open Space, Vienna, Austria, October 24-25, 2009.
For more information:

Global Privacy Standards in a Global World, The Public Voice, Madrid,
Spain, November 3, 2009. For more information:

31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners, Madrid, Spain, November 4-6, 2009. For more information,

UN Internet Governance Forum, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, November 15-18,
2009. For more information:

Privacy 2010, Stanford, March 23 - 25, 2010. For more information:

Join EPIC on Facebook

Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook


Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to
date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC.

Privacy Policy

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

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

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 or write
EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202
483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).

Donate to EPIC

If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks
should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at:

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

Thank you for your support.

Subscription Information

Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:

Back issues are available at:

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

------------------------- END EPIC Alert 16.18 ------------------------


Share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
US Needs a Data Protection Agency
2020 Election Security