EPIC Alert 18.04
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 18.04 March 03, 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1804.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] Supreme Court Opinion Scores Major Win For Privacy Proponents [2] EPIC Urges Federal Trade Commission to Actually Protect Consumers [3] White House Budget Funds Surveillance, Ignores Public Concerns [4] EPIC, Coalition Urge Congress to Pursue FOIA Oversight [5] California Supreme Court Rules Zip Code is Personal Information [6] News In Brief [7] EPIC Book Review: "The Net Delusion" [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] Supreme Court Opinion Scores Major Win For Privacy Proponents ======================================================================= In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court has held that federal protections for "personal privacy" do not permit corporations to prevent disclosure of government records. The case hinged on the Court's interpretation of the "personal privacy" exemption in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). AT&T had argued that the corporation's "personal privacy" prevented release of records pertaining to the FCC's investigation into AT&T's government contract work. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose opinion the Supreme Court reviewed in this case, agreed with AT&T, explaining that "personal" derives from "person," a statutory term which included corporations in other parts of the FOIA statute. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief for the FCC, urging the Justices to reject AT&T's claim. EPIC's brief cited the commonly understood meaning of "personal privacy" in the work of legal scholars and technical experts, demonstrating that the term applies only to individuals, not corporations. EPIC also provided the Court with an extensive survey of U.S. privacy laws, which similarly restrict the term. The brief concluded that that if upheld, the lower court's "interpretation of 'personal privacy' would stand as an outlier, untethered to common understanding, legal scholarship, technical methods, or privacy law." The Solicitor General attacked the lower court's opinion as well, calling it "a singular outlier in an otherwise uniform body of more than 35 years of decisional law and commentary." The Court agreed with the FCC, writing, "the protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally." In another opinion that the Supreme Court released on the same week, the Court also held that "restricting speech on purely private matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting speech on matters of public interest." Both opinions show that the Court's approach to privacy stands in stark contrast to its previous extension of First Amendment rights to corporate entities. The Supreme Court's favorable treatment of EPIC's legal positions in both of these cases bodes well for the protection of prescriber data in an upcoming case on EPIC's amicus docket, IMS Health v. Sorrell. Data mining companies have challenged a Vermont prescription privacy law, arguing that it violates their First Amendment interest in buying and selling "de-identified" prescriber records. EPIC filed a brief in that case on behalf of scholars, experts, and privacy and consumer groups, contending that the privacy interest in safeguarding medical records is substantial and that the "de-identification" techniques adopted by data-mining firms do not protect patient privacy. Oral argument in Sorrell takes place on April 26, 2011. Supreme Court Opinion: FCC v. AT&T http://epic.org/amicus/fccvatt/FCC_v_AT%26T.pdf EPIC: FCC v. AT&T http://epic.org/amicus/fccvatt/default.html EPIC: IMS Health v. Sorrell http://epic.org/privacy/ims_sorrell/ Supreme Court Opinion: Snyder v. Phelps http://epic.org/amicus/snyder/09-751-1.pdf ======================================================================= [2] EPIC Urges Federal Trade Commission to Actually Protect Consumers ======================================================================= In response to a request for comments on a Federal Trade Commission report, EPIC criticized the Commission for failing to act on numerous privacy complaints currently pending before the Commission, including those involving Facebook privacy settings, Google Buzz, and Cloud Computing Services. The Commission report, "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: a Proposed Framework for Business and Policy Makers," recommended the creation of a Do Not Track mechanism, the adoption of "privacy by design" techniques, and the use of simplified consumer privacy notices. In its comments, EPIC urged the Commission to use its Section 5 enforcement authority to protect consumers, as it has done in the past with its sanctions of Choicepoint and Microsoft Passport. EPIC also recommended a comprehensive federal privacy law based on Fair Information Practices, support for Privacy Enhancing Technologies, and the establishment of an independent privacy agency. EPIC has filed an administrative appeal with the Federal Trade Commission, challenging the agency's failure to disclose information about its decision to end the Google Spy-Fi investigation. EPIC is specifically seeking a slide presentation that the Commission provided to Congress about the matter. The agency has claimed that the presentation to Congress is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In earlier documents obtained by EPIC through this request, a senior attorney with the Federal Trade Commission describes the Google Wi-Fi investigation as a "wasted summer" and hoped that a Hill briefing on Google Wi-Fi "won't be too much of a time suck." EPIC pursued these requests after the Federal Trade Commission dropped its investigation of Google Street View. Several countries, including the U.K., Germany, Spain, and Canada, have conducted similar investigations and determined that Google violated their privacy laws. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission opened an investigation into Google’s potential violations of U.S. wiretap law and the Federal Communications Act after EPIC filed a formal complaint. However, the documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information suggest that the Federal Trade Commission did not even examine the data Google gathered from private residential Wi-Fi routers in the US. EPIC: Comments to FTC (February 18, 2011) http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111FTCcomments.html EPIC: FTC FOIA Appeal (February 11, 2011) http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/FTC_Streetview_FOIA_Appeal2.pdf FTC: "Waste of Summer" E-mail http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/documents/FOIA_FTC_Email_2.pdf FTC: "Time Suck" E-mail http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/documents/FOIA_FTC_Email_3.pdf FTC: Letter to Google (October 27, 2010) http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/101027googleletter.pdf EPIC: FCC Complaint (May 21, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111FCCCcomplaint.html EPIC: Google Street View http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/ EPIC: Federal Trade Commission http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/ ======================================================================= [3] White House Budget Funds Surveillance, Ignores Public Concerns ======================================================================= The Office of Management and Budget has released the federal budget for fiscal year 2012. The budget provides the Department of Homeland Security $43.2 billion, an increase of $309 million above the 2010 figure. The increases will be used to strengthen border security through new Customs and Border Protection officers and updating Coast Guard assets. Administrative costs, narrow and duplicative grant programs, and professional contract services were eliminated to reduce expenditure. The new budget also includes an $82 million increase to deploy up to 1,275 Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) screening machines stationed at airports across the country by 2012. The machines, which detect anomalies on persons as they walk through, will not be able to store or transmit the images obtained to ensure privacy. The budget includes new explosives detection systems to be installed at airports. The FY2011 Budget did not include these funds. Furthermore, it affords $459 million to the National Cybersecurity Division, which protects the country’s networks under the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative from cyber attacks. The previous Budget awarded $364 million to the Division. The budget prioritizes investments in education reform, proper job training, and research and development. The Administration proposes 211 reductions, terminations, and savings that will result in saving $33 billion. Despite the public’s privacy concerns, the budget sets out the deployment of additional AIT machines. EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, because the program is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." EPIC argued that the Department of Homeland Security has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. The oral arguments are scheduled for March 10. Last year, EPIC joined the Privacy Coalition in a letter sent to the House Committee on Homeland Security urging them to investigate the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chief Privacy Officer. The letter cited DHS use of Fusion Centers, Whole Body Imaging, funding of CCTV Surveillance, and as examples of where the agency is eroding privacy protections. The House Homeland Committee Chairman stated that the Committee would "continue to examine the Department's programs and policies and vigorously address privacy concerns and issues." OMB Federal Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget EPIC: DHS Privacy Office http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html EPIC: Information Fusion Centers and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/ EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111EPICvDHS.html ======================================================================= [4] EPIC, Coalition Urge Congress to Pursue FOIA Oversight ======================================================================= EPIC and a coalition of over 30 organizations and open government experts have sent a letter to Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, urging public hearings on the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of vetting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by political appointees. The coalition letter urged Chairman Issa to expand the time period under investigation, noting that the political vetting process has been in place for several years. Rep. Issa has undertaken an investigation of this "political review" policy. This policy drew his scrutiny when the release of over 1,000 agency documents revealed a persistent agency practice of flagging FOIA requests from EPIC and other watchdog organizations for referral. Rep. Issa issued a letter to Secretary Janet Napolitano demanding that the Department release all documents regarding the agency’s policy of vetting FOIA requests through political appointees. He also asked that the Department’s political appointees appear before the Committee for interviews regarding this policy. The coalition also recommended that the Committee support the Office Government Information Services, the "FOIA Ombudsman," and encourage the Government Accountability Office to conduct investigations of agency FOIA practices. The FOIA Ombudsman is authorized to recommend to the President and Congress policy changes that would improve the administration of FOIA. The Government Accountability Office is the “congressional watchdog,” and may conduct audits of agency operations, investigate alleged illegal or improper activities, as well as advise Congress and federal agencies how to work more efficiently, responsively, and ethically. The Office published a report in 2009 of its audit of the Department of Homeland Security’s FOIA policies and practices. Among its recommendations was for the Department to increase its internal oversight and monitoring and to increase and specialize the FOIA training. EPIC previously requested an investigation into FOIA practices at the Department of Homeland Security. EPIC said that the FOIA does not permit agencies to select requests for political scrutiny. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the identity of the requester and the reason for the request are irrelevant to processing FOIA requests. EPIC: Privacy Coalition letter to Rep. Issa http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/Issa_FOIA_Oversight_Ltr_02_15_11.pdf Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-CA) http://issa.house.gov/ House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111OGR.html Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano http://politi.co/htMYtV DHS FOIA Policy http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111DHSfoia.html Office of Government Information Services http://www.archives.gov/ogis/ Government Accountability Office http://gao.gov/ EPIC: Letter to OGIS regarding DHS Political Review Policy http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111EPICltrOGIS.html Freedom of Information Act http://www.archives.gov/ogis/guidance/open-gov.pdf EPIC: Open Government http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ EPIC: Litigation under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010 http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/default.html ======================================================================= [5] California Supreme Court Rules Zip Code is Personal Information ======================================================================= In Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, the California Supreme Court has determined that merchants may not require credit card customers to provide ZIP codes. Plaintiff Jessica Pineda sued merchant Williams-Sonoma after that a cashier requested her ZIP code and the company then used it to determine Pineda's home address. Pineda believed that providing her ZIP code was necessary to complete a credit card transaction. Instead, the company used it to match Pineda's purchase information to a separate database, filled with millions of names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and street addresses. The California Supreme Court's decision dealt mostly with statutory interpretation: The Court interpreted the Credit Card Act of 1971, a state law, to protect ZIP codes. "The Court of Appeal's interpretation, by contrast, would permit retailers to obtain indirectly what they are clearly prohibited from obtaining directly, 'end-running' the statute's clear purpose," the Court reasoned. A key factor to the Court's unanimous decision was that the company's collection practices present the opportunity to "sell the information it has compiled to other businesses." The Court emphasized that its decision was consistent with the state law's plain language, the law's purpose, and the stated intent of the legislature in passing it. The Court pointed to multiple mentions of consumer privacy in the legislative record. One particularly relevant state senate report even labeled the accrual of "mailing and telephone lists" sold to "direct-mail or tele-marketing specialists" as "The Problem." The Court concluded its opinion by "briefly" rebutting Williams-Sonoma constitutional arguments. First, the company argued that this would result in an unconstitutionally large financial penalty. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court would have discretion to decrease the penalty if there was good reason to do so. Second, the company argued that it did not have a good reason to anticipate that ZIP codes were protected under the Credit Card Act of 1971, and therefore that the Court's ruling should only apply to future violations. The Court held that the law provided "constitutionally adequate notice" to the company. Supreme Court of California: Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S178241.PDF Credit Card Act of 1971 http://www.cardreport.com/laws/california/1747-1748-7.html EPIC: Re-Identification http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/ EPIC: IMS Health, Inc. v. Sorrell http://epic.org/privacy/ims_sorrell/ EPIC: IMS Health, Inc. v. Ayotte http://epic.org/privacy/imshealth/ EPIC: Social Security Numbers http://epic.org/privacy/ssn/ ======================================================================= [6] News In Brief ======================================================================= Senate, House Pass Limited Patriot Act Extensions The Senate and the House have each passed short-term extensions of the Patriot Act. The Senate passed a three-month extension, while the House extended the provisions until Dec. 8. The extensions included the “lone wolf” provision, permitting surveillance of individuals and groups not connected to identified terrorist groups, the “library law” provision granting access to “any tangible items” of individuals under surveillance, and the provision authorizing the FBI’s use of roving wiretaps. A Judiciary Committee hearing on Senator Leahy’s proposal to extend the provisions until 2013 with increased oversight is expected soon. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) opposed efforts to extend the provisions that “undercut important oversight and government accountability of these intelligence gathering tools.” EPIC has in the past urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to require the Attorney General to report to Congress on potentially unlawful investigations. U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111senatepatriot.html U.S. House of Representatives: Roll Call Vote http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll036.xml Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Press Release http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111LeahyPR.html EPIC: Letter to Judiciary Committee, http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/judiciary_102405.pdf EPIC: USA Patriot Act http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/judiciary_102405.pdf EPIC: PATRIOT FOIA Litigation http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/ New Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Tech. and Law Chaired by Franken Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that as part of his commitment to protecting “Americans’ privacy in the digital age,” a new Judiciary subcommittee would be formed. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) will chair the Privacy, Technology and the Law subcommittee. Sen. Franken stated that as chair he would “try to make sure that we can reap the rewards of new technology while also protecting American’s right to privacy.” In its oversight role, the subcommittee will cover laws pertaining, among other things, to the collection, protection, use, and dissemination of commercial information by the private sector, privacy on social networking sites, privacy standards, and the privacy implications of new or emerging technologies. Press Release http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1315 Privacy, Technology and the Law Subcommittee http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111PTLsub.html EPIC: Social Networking http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/ EPIC: Cloud Computing http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/ EPIC: Federal Trade Commission http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/ Internet Policy Group Opposes GAC Veto The Internet Governance Project, a Syracuse-based group of academics dedicated to the research and publication of Internet policy issues, has created a petition to persuade the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to oppose a U.S. Commerce Department proposal. The proposal would allow the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN to block the creation of new website addresses without justification. Governments could exercise arbitrary power over websites, which could significantly hinder website content. The proposal will be discussed at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Brussels on February 28. Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/ U.S. Department of Commerce Proposal http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/USGmonstrosity.pdf GAC Veto Petition http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto ======================================================================= [7] EPIC Book Review: "The Net Delusion" ======================================================================= "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom," Evgeny Morozov http://www.epic.org/redirect/030111netdelusion.html Last January, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated a universal, unconditional commitment to expanding Internet access as a tool to liberate oppressed people. A year later, Evgeny Morozov has built a strong case for a more conditional commitment, premised on the ways new technologies are likely to meld with existing systems of control. His new book, The Net Delusion, lambastes what he calls the "Internet Freedom Agenda," a political approach to Internet access that foreign policy elites have borrowed from mainstream internet experts. As he puts it, "different contexts give rise to different problems, and are thus in need of custom-made solutions and strategies." Internet Freedom Agenda advocates are the ones bound to find more than a few key differences with Morozov. The Net Delusion sparked a heated debate throughout January, with heavyweights from the "digerati" raring to step into the ring. Clay Shirky and Jay Rosen helped to drive the debate in the first few weeks, and by February, it became the box for White House speechwriters to check off. In part, Morozov's message owes its meteoric rise to the uprisings across the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond. Still, the Net Delusion does carry its own weight, a feat ever the more impressive considering how heavy a lift it is to challenge conventional wisdom on this front. Morozov has a knack for knowing which questions to answer and which answers to question. Most notably, he takes pains to shift the mainstream account of the Green Movement in Iran, now a textbook model for failed revolution broadcasted via social media. In tech circles, it is well known that the State Department emailed Twitter sometime in July of 2009 in order to keep Iranian dissidents tweeting. The company agreed to delay a scheduled maintenance session at Washington's request. Morozov fills out the rest of the story to establish a direct connection between American intervention and the Green Movement's ultimate demise. He explains how a hard-line Iranian newspaper caught wind of the State Department email and used it to release a torrent of conspiracy theories about Western imperialism. As a result, paranoid delusions flooded domestic airwaves and drowned out the protester's message of political reform. No doubt, recent events have Morozov hoping that Google will develop a political risk version of its popular "Mail Goggles" feature (http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-stop-sending-mail-you -later.html). Until then, his aim is to convince policymakers to be more realistic about optics: whoever clicked "Send" should have questioned how locals in Tehran would perceive open collaboration between Washington and Silicon Valley. Morozov's second aim is to persuade his readers that the Internet can play into existing power dynamics. Governments enjoy many of the same incumbency advantages in the online world that they do offline, including the ability to outsource Research & Development. Take for example the Department of Homeland Security's Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative. DHS plans to scrape publically available social media accounts for personal data, and to compile and analyze the results on an ongoing basis, with the goal of then disseminating everything to federal, state, local, and foreign governments (administrative comments due to DHS no later than March 3, 2011 - http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-2198.pdf). Morozov delivers on both of these aims with a contrarian, "inside baseball" style, unique to the field of popular Internet experts he both criticizes and occupies. Some portions of The Net Delusion read like a trade rag, others will resonate with the more academically inclined, as Morozov engages literary giants such as Orwell, Huxley, and Kierkegaard to add force to his conclusions. What ultimately keeps the pages turning is what connects these varied points of departure: the author's gift for moving from one counterintuitive flourish to the next. The take home is clear: as the worlds of tech and global activism collide and intertwine, received wisdom is intellectual death. -- Conor Kennedy ================================ 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 ======================================================================= "Secondary and Intermediary Liability on the Internet." Stanford Technology Law Review, Stanford Law School, 3 March 2011. For More Information: http://stlr.stanford.edu/symposia/2011-secondary-liability-online/. "Privacy and the Supreme Court." Columbia Law School, New York, New York, 4 March 2011. "The Web: Wiring Our World." UNIS-UN, New York, 4 March 2011. For More Information: http://www.unis-un.org/unisun/. "The Review of the EU Data Protection Framework: Latest State of Play." European Parliament, Room JAN4Q2, Brussels, Belgium, 16 March 2011. For More Information: sophie.bots@europarl.europa.eu. "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.cfp.org/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 18.04 ------------------------
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.