EPIC Alert 18.01
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 18.01 January 13, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1801.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate Report All Screening Experiences at EPIC Body Scanner Incident Report http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/ ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] Key Consumer Privacy Legislation Enacted in Early 2011 [2] EPIC to Comment on Key Privacy Reports [3] EPIC Hosts Conference and Files Reply Brief in Body Scanners Case [4] Key Court Decisions Examine Traditional Warrant Requirements [5] Supreme Court to Hear Medical Privacy Case [6] Gallup Poll Shows Public Opposed to Online Tracking [7] News In Brief [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Stop Airport Strip Searches! - JOIN Facebook Group "Stop Airport Strip Searches" and INVITE Friends - DISPLAY the IMAGE http://thepublicvoice.org/nakedmachine.jpg - SUPPORT EPIC http://www.epic.org/donate/ ======================================================================= [1] Key Consumer Privacy Legislation Enacted in Early 2011 ======================================================================= President Obama has signed into law two key pieces of legislation which will serve to strengthen privacy protections, the "Social Security Protection Act of 2010" and the "Truth in Caller ID Act." The first new law is aimed at reducing identity theft by limiting the Government's use of and access to social security numbers. The bill prohibits government agencies from printing social security numbers on checks and prohibits prison inmates' access to social security numbers. "Social Security numbers are among Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets," said Sen. Feinstein (D - CA), a sponsor of the bill. "Identity theft is a serious concern for all consumers, and we should make every effort to protect personal information." EPIC has testified many times before Congress on the need to safeguard Social Security Numbers, including at four separate House hearings between 2001 and 2007. EPIC has also participated in important cases on Social Security Number privacy. For example, in Doe v. Chao in 2004, EPIC, along with a coalition of civil liberties organizations and technical and legal experts, filed a "friend of the court" brief, arguing that the Privacy Act provides damages for those who suffer "adverse effects," though no actual harm. President Obama has also signed into law the "Truth in Caller ID Act." This new act will ban the transmission of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information "with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value." The change will affect normal telephones as well as wireless and Internet phone services. EPIC recommended this intent requirement in testimony before the House in 2006 and 2007, and before the Senate in 2007, so that Privacy Enhancing Techniques (PETs) would not be criminalized. Social Security Protection Act of 2010 http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411SSPA.html Truth in Caller ID Act http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411TICID.html EPIC: House Testimony on Truth in Caller ID Act (May 2006) http://epic.org/privacy/iei/hr5126test.pdf EPIC: House Testimony on Truth in Caller ID Act (Feb. 2007) http://epic.org/privacy/iei/hr251test.pdf EPIC: Senate Testimony on Truth in Caller ID Act (June 2007) http://epic.org/privacy/iei/s704test.pdf EPIC: Doe v. Chao http://epic.org/privacy/chao/ EPIC: Social Security Numbers http://epic.org/privacy/ssn/ EPIC: Identity Theft http://epic.org/privacy/idtheft/ EPIC: Caller ID http://epic.org/privacy/caller_id/ ======================================================================= [2] EPIC to Comment on Key Privacy Reports ======================================================================= Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Commerce are requesting public comments on their respective Internet privacy reports by the end of January. The Commission's staff report, "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change," is open for comments until January 31, while the Commerce Department will accept comments on its green paper, "Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework," until January 28. The Federal Trade Commission released a preliminary staff report on privacy, following a series of public roundtable discussions. The report recommends the establishment of a Do-Not-Track mechanism, based in Internet browsers, which would enable users to opt-out of third-party web tracking, including behavioral advertising. The report also calls for simplified consumer privacy notices and recommends that "companies . . . adopt a 'privacy by design' approach by building privacy protections into their everyday business practices." EPIC's comments on this report will address the need for both an independent privacy agency with enforcement powers and will propose a comprehensive federal privacy law based on Fair Information Practices and modeled on the OECD Privacy Guidelines and the Privacy Act of 1974. EPIC will also urge the Commission to pursue investigations already before it, including those that involve Google Buzz and Facebook privacy settings. The FTC's refusal to act on these claims shows how self-regulation fails without meaningful enforcement of a company's published privacy policies. The Department of Commerce report calls for the adoption of Fair Information Practices, the development of privacy codes of conducts, and the creation of a privacy office in the Department of Commerce. However, the Commerce report stops short of a legislative proposal for an independent privacy agency. EPIC's comments to the Department of Commerce will address all of these topics, focusing on implementation and enforcement. Additionally, the comments will discuss why "safe harbor" does not work and the need to support a comprehensive international framework for privacy protection. The House Energy and Commerce Committee also recently addressed the potential for a Do-Not-Track mechanism. EPIC had submitted a statement following a Committee hearing, which recommended that Congress review the lessons learned from the history of the Do-Not-Call List and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. EPIC said that an effective Do-Not-Track initiative must ensure that a consumer's decision to opt-out is "enforceable, persistent, transparent, and simple." FTC Privacy Report http://ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf Department of Commerce Privacy Report http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411DOCprivrep.html FTC Privacy Roundtables http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables/ EPIC: Statement to FTC on Cloud Computing/Social Networking http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/privacyroundtable/544506-00078.pdf OECD Guidelines http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411OECD.html Privacy Act of 1974 http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm EPIC: In Re Google Buzz http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/googlebuzz/default.html EPIC: In Re Facebook http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/ EPIC: Statement on Do Not Track (Dec. 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/121710EPICdnt.html US-EU Safe Harbor Framework http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/ EPIC: Online Tracking and Behavioral Advertising http://www.epic.org/redirect/121710EPICtracking.html ======================================================================= [3] EPIC Hosts Conference and Files Reply Brief in Body Scanners Case ======================================================================= On January 6, 2011, EPIC hosted "The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures" at the Carnegie Institute for Science in Washington, DC. The conference brought together elected officials, grassroots advocates, civil society groups, and law and technology scholars to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's body scanner program in a total of four hour-long panels and two keynote addresses. Speakers included Representative Rush Holt, who delivered the opening keynote speech, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, New York City Councilman David Greenfield, as well as representatives of the Libertarian Party, Flyer's Rights, and the CATO Institute. Technology expert Bruce Schneier delivered the afternoon keynote speech, "Restoring Sanity to Airport Security." The conference, covered by CSPAN, was fully interactive, with a videocast and a live Twitter feed. On the same day, EPIC filed a reply brief in its lawsuit to disband the program. The brief argues that because "the TSA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and with profound disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of air travelers, the agency's rule should be set aside and further deployment of the body scanners should be suspended." EPIC filed its opening brief on November 1, 2010, arguing that the body scanners are "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." Oral argument is scheduled for March 10, 2011. EPIC Counsel Ginger McCall discussed the reply brief at the conference on a panel with Nadhira Al-Khalili and Jeffrey Rosen, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. Ms. Al-Khalili is Legal Counsel for the Council on American Islamic Relations and a pro-se litigant in EPIC's lawsuit, based on religious objections to the body scanner program. Professor Rosen has authored two compelling news articles about the body scanners, privacy, and the Constitution for The Washington Post and The New Republic. The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures http://epic.org/events/tsa/ Conference Resources http://epic.org/events/tsa/resources.php "Nude Breach" (Dec. 13, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411Rosen_TNR.html "The TSA Is Invasive, Annoying, and Unconstitutional" (Nov. 28, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411Rosen_WashPost.html EPIC v. DHS: EPIC's Reply Brief (Jan. 6, 2011) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411EPICvDHS_Reply.html EPIC v. DHS: EPIC's Opening Brief (Nov. 1, 2010) http://epic.org/EPIC_Body_Scanner_OB.pdf ======================================================================= [4] Key Court Decisions Examine Traditional Warrant Requirements ======================================================================= State and federal courts have been scrutinizing traditional warrant requirements when applied to cell phones and cell-site data, email, and law enforcements' use of GPS devices to track individuals. In People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court has held that an exception to the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of a person's cell phone following a lawful arrest. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Werdegar said that the cited exception was intended to permit warrantless searches of clothing or small physical containers, and that accessing electronic data storage devices is uniquely invasive. "Never before has it been possible to carry so much personal or business information in one's pocket or purse." In a recent "friend of the court" brief to the Supreme Court, EPIC explained that modern communications devices contain extensive personal information and should be entitled to privacy protection. Other courts, however, have expanded protections for subjects of police investigations. The Delaware Superior Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before using GPS devices to monitor vehicles, stating that the Delaware Constitution protects its citizens' reasonable expectation of privacy from "constant surveillance." The Court noted "[e]veryone understands there is a possibility that on any one occasion or even multiple occasions, they may be observed by a member of the public or possibly law enforcement." But, the Court reasoned further, "there is not such an expectation that an omnipresent force is watching your every move." EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in a related case where the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that a warrant is required for the use of a GPS tracking device. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has also strengthened privacy protections, affirming a decision that the government cannot seize historical cell-site data without first satisfying strict warrant requirements. The data identifies the location of the towers nearest to a mobile phone user at the beginning and end of each call, and is often logged over more than a year's time. After the government's second appeal for a rehearing, the Third Circuit once again upheld the requirement for a higher showing. In Warshak v. United States, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Constitution establishes greater protections for stored email than is set out in federal laws. The government had compelled an Internet service provider to reveal 27,000 emails without securing a warrant or giving notice to the customer, Steven Warshak. The Court held that the seizure violated Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court explained that "to the extent that the [law] purports to permit the government to obtain such emails warrantlessly, [it] is unconstitutional." With the Warshak decision, the Sixth Circuit has joined the First Circuit in finding that email is subject to strong protections under electronic privacy laws. EPIC joined a group of civil liberties organizations and Professor Orin Kerr to submit a "friend of the court" brief in U.S. v. Councilman, a First Circuit case concerning email and the Wiretap Act. A separate "friend of the court" brief in Councilman from leading technology experts explained that privacy protection is "critical for electronic mail." EPIC: People v. Diaz http://epic.org/privacy/devicesearch/People_v_Diaz.pdf City of Ontario v. Quon: EPIC "friend of the court" brief http://epic.org/privacy/quon/Quon_Brief_Draft_final.pdf Delaware v. Holden: Delaware Superior Court Opinion http://epic.org/Jurden.Del.pdf Commonwealth v. Connolly: EPIC "friend of the court" brief http://epic.org/privacy/connolly/042009amicus.pdf Protection of Cell-Site Data: 3d Cir. Opinion (Denying Rehearing) http://epic.org/3rd_circ_rehearing_denied1.pdf Warshak v. United States: 6th Cir. Opinion http://epic.org/07a0225p-06.pdf U.S. v. Councilman: EPIC "friend of the court" brief http://epic.org/privacy/councilman/kerr_amicus.pdf ======================================================================= [5] Supreme Court to Hear Medical Privacy Case ======================================================================= The Supreme Court will review the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. The Second Circuit struck down Vermont's prescription confidentiality law regulating data mining companies that sell or use doctors' prescribing records containing personal information on patients. In the request for review Vermont had argued for the importance of consistency across state boundaries, listing twenty-six other states considering proposed prescription confidentiality laws. The Vermont Attorney General wrote, "As the ability to amass volumes of information about prospective customers - including health care providers - grows, States and other regulators need guidance as to the scope of their ability to allow individual Americans to control access to and use of their information." The Court of Appeal's decision, which relied on the First Amendment, diverged significantly from other decisions upholding similar laws. When Maine's prescription privacy law was challenged, the First Circuit upheld the law, finding that the statute "regulates conduct, not speech, and even if it regulates commercial speech, that regulation satisfies constitutional standards." The First Circuit also upheld a similar prescription confidentiality law prohibiting the sale of prescription information in New Hampshire. The Supreme Court refused a request to review the challenge to New Hampshire's law. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the Vermont law at the circuit court level, arguing that the state has a substantial interest in protecting the privacy of medial records and that the data miners' de-identification practices do not, in fact, protect patient privacy. Now that the Supreme Court has granted review of the Second Circuit's opinion, EPIC plans to submit a second "friend of the court" brief in further support of Vermont's law. IMS Health Inc. v. Sorell: Petition for Certiorari http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411IMSvSORELL_Cert.html IMS Health Inc. v. Sorell: 2d Cir. Opinion http://epic.org/IMS%202d%20Cir%2011-23-10.pdf IMS Health Inc. v. Sorell: EPIC "friend of the court" brief (2d Cir.) http://epic.org/privacy/ims_sorrell/epic_amicus.pdf EPIC: IMS Health v. Sorrell http://epic.org/privacy/ims_sorrell/default.html EPIC: IMS Health v. Ayotte http://epic.org/privacy/imshealth/ EPIC: Medical Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/medical/ ======================================================================= [6] Gallup Poll Shows Public Opposed to Online Tracking ======================================================================= A new Gallup poll released at the end of 2010 has revealed that 67% of U.S. Internet users do not believe that advertisers should "be allowed to match ads to your specific interests based on websites you have visited." Even when confronted with the idea that these targeted ads could keep costs down for users, 61% of those polled said these tracking techniques are "not worth the invasion of privacy involved." The poll surveyed over 1,000 adults living across the United States. These results indicate that the public may support a Do Not Track mechanism, similar to that recommended by the Federal Trade Commission recommended in its 2010 privacy report. Following a series of roundtable discussions, the Commission endorsed a Do Not Track mechanism that would be based in Internet browsers and would enable users to opt-out of third-party web tracking, including behavioral advertising. The report also called for simplified consumer privacy notices and recommended "companies' adopt a 'privacy by design' approach by building privacy protections into their everyday business practices." EPIC participated in the roundtable discussions that preceded the Commission's report and submitted a statement on the privacy implications of cloud computing and social networking. EPIC also submitted a statement to Congress saying that an effective Do Not Track initiative must ensure that a consumer's decision to opt-out is "enforceable, persistent, transparent, and simple." Congress had considered various proposals for a Do Not Track mechanism in a hearing entitled "Do Not Track Legislation: Is Now the Right Time?" The House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection conducted the hearing, which included witnesses from the Department of Commerce, Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Federation of America, TimeWarner, and Symantec. The Gallup poll concluded that "if the FTC moves forward with a 'Do Not Track' measure that is voluntary for advertisers, Internet users' clear desire is for advertisers to sign up - and leave decisions about who can track them squarely in the users' hands." Gallup Poll: U.S. Internet Users Ready to Limit Online Tracking for Ads http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411gallup.html Federal Trade Commission: Privacy Report http://ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf FTC Privacy Roundtables http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables/ House Energy and Commerce Committee: Do Not Track Hearing (Dec. 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/121710house_dnt.html EPIC: Do Not Track Statement (Dec. 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411EPICdnt.html EPIC: Online Tracking and Behavioral Profiling http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411EPICprofiling.html ======================================================================= [7] News In Brief ======================================================================= EPIC Publishes Year In Review: Reflects on 2010, Predicts New Issues EPIC has released the 2010 Privacy Year In Review. The EPIC Year in Review examines the top privacy issues from 2010 and predicts the privacy headlines of 2011. Top stories for 2010 included TSA's airport screening, Google Streetview, and Facebook Privacy Settings, and Do Not Track proposals. For 2011, EPIC predicts that the privacy hot topics will be "Smart Grid," Privacy Legislation, Biometric identifiers, and the push for a comprehensive international privacy convention. EPIC: 2010 Privacy Year In Review http://epic.org/alert/epic_alert_yir2010.html Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org EPIC: Top News Archive http://epic.org/news/2011/ Court Grants Government Motion in EPIC Body Scanner FOIA Lawsuit A federal district court has granted the Department of Homeland Security's motion to conclude one of EPIC's Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. EPIC was seeking more than 2,000 images generated by airport body scanners held by the TSA. The DHS objected to the disclosure and the court sided with the government. The court relied on a legal theory, "Exemption High (b)(2)" that is currently under review by the Supreme Court in Milner v. Dept. of Navy. As a result of this lawsuit, EPIC obtained many documents concerning the airport screening program, including Procurement Specifications, Operational Requirements, traveler complaints, and vendor contracts with L3 and Rapiscan, that were subsequently made available to the public. EPIC may appeal the district court's decision as to the release of the body scanner images. EPIC v. DHS: D.C. District Court Opinion http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411EPICvDHS_distct.html EPIC v. DHS: DHS Motion for Summary Judgment http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/DHS_Motion_for_Summ_Judg.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Body Scanners) http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/epic_v_dhs.html EPIC: Milner v. Department of Navy http://epic.org/amicus/milner.html EPIC: TSA Procurement Specifications Document (September 23, 2008) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf EPIC: TSA Operational Requirements Document (July 2006) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Ops_Requirements.pdf EPIC: TSA Traveler Complaints http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411TSAcomplaints.html EPIC: TSA Contract with L3 http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Millwave_Contract.pdf EPIC: TSA Contract with Rapiscan (1) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Rapiscan_Contract.pdf EPIC: TSA Contract with Rapiscan (2) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Rapiscan_Manufacturer.pdf EPIC: Body Scanners http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ Organizations Join to Fight for International DNA Database Legislation The Council for Responsible Genetics, GeneWatch UK, and Privacy International have announced human rights standards for DNA database legislation. A GeneWatch UK report identifies potential areas of DNA abuse, including unlawful tracking of individuals, genetic discrimination, and unauthorized access to private information. The organizations have proposed limits on when genetic information can be obtained and stored. According to the Council for Responsible Genetics, at least 56 countries operate national DNA databases. In the United States, databases are maintained by all 50 states as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Council for Responsible Genetics http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ Council for Responsible Genetics: National DNA Databases http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/index.html GeneWatch UK http://www.genewatch.org/ GeneWatch UK: Forensic DNA Databases and Human Rights http://www.epic.org/redirect/011411genewatchreport.html Privacy International http://www.privacyinternational.org ================================ EPIC Publications: "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75 http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/ 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 President Obama's 2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's March 2009 memo on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under: the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2010 volume is the 25th 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. http://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html 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. http://www.epic.org/phr06/ 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. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook 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: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/ 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 CAN-SPAM Act. ================================ "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. ================================ 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 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: http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= Digital Privacy Forum. Medisbistro, New York, NY, 20 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.mediabistro.com/digitalprivacyforum/. "Privacy in the Age of Mobile Broadband: Government, Industry, and Consumer Perspectives on Creating a New Privacy Paradigm." Federal Communications Bar Association, Washington, D.C., 25 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.fcba.org/. "Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection Conference European Data Protection: In Good Health?" Brussels, Belgium, 25-28 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.cpdpconferences.org/. "Data Protection Day: Don't Let Them Know All About You," Screening, Exhibition, and Discussion. Toldi Cinema, Budapest, Hungary, 28 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.pet-portal.eu/gallery. Privacy Party. Brussels, Belgium, 28-29 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163735116973084. "Data Protection Day: Joint High Level Meeting." Brussels, Belgium, 28 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.data-protection-day.net/home.jsp. "The Technology of Privacy: When Geeks Meet Wonks." Google, Washington, D.C., 28 January 2011. For More Information: http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/talks.html. "All Access Shred Day." Locations Across the United States, 28 January 2011. For More Information: http://accesscorp.com/national-data-privacy-day.htm. Federal Bar Association: Transportation Security Law Section and Transportation Security Administration. Transportation Security Administration Headquarters - Town Hall, Washington, D.C., 1 February 2011. For More Information: Adrienne Woolley, FBA, wooley@fedbar.org. Smart Grid Summit: "Personal Privacy - Who Left the Fridge Door Open?" Miami Beach Convention Center, Miami, FL, 2-3 February 2011. For More Information: http://smart-grid.tmcnet.com/conference/east-11/. "The Tenth Workshop on Economics of Information Security." The George Mason University, 14-15 June 2011. For More Information: http://weis2011.econinfosec.org/index.html. "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 2011." Georgetown Law Center, Washington D.C., 14-16 June 2011. For More Information: http://www.cfp2010.org/wiki/index.php/Announcement_of_CFP_2011. ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook http://facebook.com/epicprivacy http://epic.org/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 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). ======================================================================= 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: 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. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface: http://mailman.epic.org/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. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 18.01 ------------------------
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.