EPIC Alert 21.08

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 21.08 April 30, 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_21.08.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/support ========================================================================= Table of Contents ========================================================================= [1] Supreme Court Hears Cell Phone Privacy Cases [2] Appeals Court Orders Release of Classified Legal Analysis [3] EPIC Obtains Documents on FTC's Facebook Investigation [4] Pew Survey Finds Opposition to Drones and Google Glass [5] Amid Privacy Backlash, Student Data Firm Dissolves [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Bookstore [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Speak Out on the New Internet Registration Directory! TAKE the Survey: http://epic.org/redirect/042114-rds-survey.html LEARN about Domain Name Privacy: http://epic.org/privacy/whois/ SUPPORT EPIC: http://epic.org/support ========================================================================= [1] Supreme Court Hears Cell Phone Privacy Cases ========================================================================= The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 29 in two cases pertaining to the warrantless search of a cell phone following an arrest. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief, signed by 24 technical experts and legal scholars, in the case Riley v. CA, arguing that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for law enforcement to inspect the data on an arrested individual's mobile phone. Because of the vast amount of personal information available on a typical phone, EPIC wrote, "[a]llowing police officers to search a person's cell phone without a warrant following an arrest would be a substantial infringement on privacy, is unnecessary, and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." During oral argument, counsel for the petitioner Riley, Jeffrey Fisher, cited EPIC's brief in addressing the possibility that evidence might be destroyed through a process known as "remote wiping." Fisher stated that "The concern about remote wiping we think, and as the experts have described in the amicus brief filed by EPIC and many others, we don't think would ever . . . give rise to a situation where that was a legitimate concern." EPIC's brief explains how US consumers are dependent on cell phones for a wide range of personal and business activities; that a great deal of personal information can be stored on cell phones; and that mobile applications can provide access to sensitive information stored on remote servers. Cell phones can also serve as an authenticator for identity in mobile banking or even in gaining access to one's car or home. According to EPIC, "a mobile phone acts as a master key that can grant access to, and prove a connection with, all of the user's various online and offline identities. The phone provides a portal to personal data stored on the cloud. Like a password, control over the phone is control over the data." EPIC has filed many "friend of the court" briefs in Fourth Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, including Maryland v. King (collection of DNA samples) and United States v. Jones (GPS tracking). US Supreme Court: Oral Argument in Riley v. CA (Apr. 29, 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-scotus-riley-argument.html EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Riley v. CA (Mar. 10, 2014) http://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf EPIC: Riley v. CA http://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/ EPIC: Maryland v. King https://epic.org/amicus/dna-act/maryland/ EPIC: US v. Jones http://epic.org/amicus/jones/ EPIC: Amicus Curiae Briefs http://epic.org/amicus/ ======================================================================== [2] Appeals Court Orders Release of Classified Legal Analysis ======================================================================== A federal court of appeals has ruled that the US Department of Justice must release the legal analysis justifying the controversial "targeted killing" drone program. The ruling stems from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the legal memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel providing the legal analysis for the targeted killing program. The appeals court's ruling reverses the previous opinion by a lower court. The government argued in the case New York Times v. Department of Justice that the analysis should be exempt from release as a privileged communication. But the ACLU and The New York Times, supported by EPIC and other open government organizations, argued that because the government relied on the legal reasoning to justify the drone program it cannot be kept secret. The Second Circuit agreed, ruling that after "senior Government officials have assured the public" that the program is "lawful and that . . . advice establishes the legal boundaries," it can no longer claim that the document is exempt from FOIA. EPIC's "friend of the court" brief was joined by seven open-government organizations and argued that secret law contravenes both democratic principles and the separation of powers. The brief asserted that disclosure of the targeted killing memo would promote public debate in line with the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act; in other words, such "secret law is inconsistent with our form of government. They frustrate public oversight and diminish the legitimacy of government." EPIC has pursued a similar case for more than seven years, seeking the disclosure of the Office of Legal Counsel's legal analysis of the Warrantless Wiretapping program - a secret program under which the NSA conducted warrantless surveillance of international telephone and Internet communications on American soil. FOIA documents obtained by EPIC to date show that a former top official in the Justice Department doubted that the domestic surveillance program was allowed under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution. Earlier in 2014 EPIC wrote in The New York Times that if "the Justice Department expects others to follow its advice, the analysis that supports its conclusions should be made public." Second Circuit Court: Opinion in NYT v. DOJ (Apr. 21, 2014) http://epic.org/amicus/foia/new-york-times/2d-Cir-Opinion.pdf EPIC et al.: "Friend of the Court" Brief in NYT v. DOJ (Apr. 22, 2013) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-epic-amicus-nyt-doj.html EPIC: New York Times v. DOJ http://epic.org/amicus/foia/new-york-times/ EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ - Warrantless Wiretapping Program http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/ NYT: EPIC Op-ed: "Make Legal Memos Public" (Jan. 20, 2014) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/opinion/make-legal-memos- public.html ========================================================================= [3] EPIC Obtains Documents on FTC's Facebook Investigation ========================================================================= As the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, EPIC has received several hundred pages of documents related to the Federal Trade Commission's investigation of Facebook's business practices. The often heavily redacted documents include the FTC's assessments of Facebook's privacy changes, communications with Facebook, and communications sent by consumer organizations, including EPIC, urging the Commission to abide by obligations to protect Facebook users' privacy. EPIC has repeatedly pressed the Commission to enforce the 2011 Consent Order, which barred Facebook from future changes to privacy settings without user consent. The Consent Order, which followed an investigation into whether "Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public," committed Facebook to develop a "comprehensive privacy program." The Order also required Facebook to give users "clear and prominent notice"; to obtain users' "express consent before sharing their information beyond their privacy settings"; to maintain "a comprehensive privacy program to protect consumers' information"; and prohibited Facebook from misrepresenting the extent to which it participates in the US-EU Safe Harbor program. EPIC also recently filed a complaint with the FTC about Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp, an instant messaging service. EPIC followed up with a supplemental complaint to the FTC, highlighting the Commission's failure to investigate mergers that similarly threaten consumer privacy. EPIC cited Google's recent acquisition of Nest, a manufacturer of "smart" thermostats that track and record data about users' energy consumption. EPIC's complaints resulted in the FTC's stern warning to Facebook not to violate WhatsApp user privacy. In the letter, which was addressed to both Facebook and WhatsApp, the Commission cautioned, "if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor [its privacy promises], both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and potentially the FTC's order against Facebook." The FTC's letter concludes, "[H]undreds of millions of users have entrusted their personal information to WhatsApp. The FTC staff continue to monitor the companies' practices to ensure that Facebook and WhatsApp honor the promises they have made to those users." FTC: FOIA Document Release, Part 1 (2013) http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Chris-Olsen-Docs.pdf FTC: FOIA Document Release, Part 2 (2013) http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Enforcement-Files.pdf FTC: FOIA Document Release, Part 3 (2013) http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Enforcement-Files.pdf FTC: In re Facebook (Mar. 17, 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/031714-FTC-in-re-FB.htmlc EPIC: WhatsApp Complaint (Mar. 6, 2014) http://epic.org/ftc/WhatsApp-Complaint.pdf FTC: Letter to Facebook and WhatsApp re: Proposed Sale (Apr. 10, 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/042114-ftc-whatsapp-letter.html EPIC: Facebook http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ ========================================================================= [4] Pew Survey Finds Opposition to Drones and Google Glass ========================================================================= A national survey conducted by Pew Research Center and Smithsonian Magazine finds that the American public is optimistic about revolutions in health science and transportation, and concerned about the future of surveillance technologies. Sixty-three percent of the 1,001 Americans surveyed believe it would be a change for the worse if "personal and commercial drones are given permission to fly through most U.S. airspace," while 22% think it would be a change for the better. Fifty-three percent of the respondents felt it would be a change for the worse if most people wear implants or other devices that constantly show them information about the world around them. Women are especially wary of a future in which these devices are widespread. Google Glass, an example of such technology, has come under scrutiny from Data Protection authorities and the US Congress. In 2012, EPIC sent comments to the Federal Trade Commission, recommending the suspension of facial recognition techniques pending the establishment of privacy safeguards. Also in 2012, EPIC, joined by 100 other organizations and experts, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to address public concerns about privacy and drones. Pew /Smithsonian: "US Views of Technology and the Future" (Apr. 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-pew-smithsonian.html Canadian DP Office: Press Release on Google Glass (Jun 8, 2013) http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2013/nr-c_130618_e.asp Cong. Privacy Caucus: Letter to Google re: Glass (May 16, 2013) http://joebarton.house.gov/images/GoogleGlassLtr_051613.pdf EPIC: Comments to FTC on Facial Recognition (Jan. 31, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/EPIC-Face-Facts-Comments.pdf EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA on Drones and Privacy (Mar. 8, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf EPIC: Google Glass and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/google/glass/default.html EPIC: Facial Recognition http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/ EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones http://epic.org/privacy/drones/ ========================================================================= [5] Amid Privacy Backlash, Student Data Firm Dissolves ========================================================================= inBloom, a private company that acquired student information from school districts across the country, has shut down. The company said its work "has been stalled because of generalized public concerns about data misuse". inBloom and other companies, including Google, acquired student data following the US Department of Education's revisions to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which significantly weakened the law. FERPA protects student records from unauthorized disclosures. In 2012, EPIC sued the Education Department for removing student privacy protections from FERPA, including allowing the release of student records for non-academic purposes, undercutting parental consent provisions, and promoting the public use of student IDs that enable access to private educational records. The court dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds, but never addressed the underlying issue: whether the Education Department was allowed to make FERPA revisions at all. In 2013, EPIC testified before the Colorado State Board of Education on student privacy issues surrounding inBloom. EPIC noted, "By collecting troves of sensitive student information, schools, and the private companies to which they outsource information, have a duty to ensure the security of that data." EPIC also set out suggestions for strengthening Colorado state privacy law to protect students against the possibility of data breach and misuse stemming from inBloom's data collection. Specifically, EPIC advised that Colorado should use "comprehensive agreements that explicitly address privacy obligations"; limit data collection and transfer to inBloom solely to "necessary information"; increase access to conduct independent and network security reviews of inBloom and other private technology services; provide parents and students with access to any agreements with inBloom and other private education technology services; ensure that students and parents have access to educational records maintained by third-party providers; and limit disclosure to third parties. In 2014, EPIC reiterated many of these suggestions in a call for a Student Privacy Bill of Rights - an enforceable student privacy and data security framework. inBloom https://www.inbloom.org/ EPIC: Google Admits to Data Mining (Mar. 19, 2014) http://epic.org/2014/03/google-admits-to-data-mining-s.html Federal Register: (FERPA) Final Rule (Jun. 29, 2012) http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/2008%20Final%20Rule.pdf EPIC: FERPA http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/ EPIC: Testimony Before the CO State Board of Education (May 16, 2013) http://epic.org/privacy/student/EPIC-Stmnt-CO-Study-5-13.pdf EPIC/Washington Post: Article on Student Privacy (Mar. 6, 2014) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/06/ why-a-student-privacy-bill-of-rights-is-desperately-needed/ EPIC: Student Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/student/ ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== EPIC v. DOJ: No Analysis of PRISM Legality In a recently concluded Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC attempted to obtain legal analysis on the NSA's controversial PRISM surveillance program. The US Justice Department responded that "no responsive records" existed. An earlier FOIA case brought by EPIC revealed that the Office of Legal Counsel provided advice on President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. But apparently no similar memos exist on the legality of the NSA's mass collection of Internet traffic. EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ - PRISM http://epic.org/foia/doj/olc/prism/ Justice Dept: Response to EPIC FOIA Request re: Prism (Feb. 24, 2014) http://epic.org/foia/doj/olc/prism/Response.pdf US Justice Dept: Memo on Warrantless Surveillance (May 2004) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-2004-doj-surveillance.html DHS Releases Cybersecurity Report; NSA Role Remains Murky The Department of Homeland Security has published the agency's first Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report. The report examines several federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, vis à vis cybersecurity activities. In 2013, the White House issued Executive Order 13636, "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity," which requires reports from DHS as well as the creation of a cybersecurity framework; EPIC subsequently recommended civilian control of domestic cybersecurity and clarification of the NSA's involvement in it. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report and the cybersecurity framework both fail to clarify the NSA's role in cybersecurity. DHS: Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report (Apr. 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-dhs-privacy-report.html Federal Register: Executive Order on Cybersecurity (Feb. 19, 2013) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf EPIC: Comments to NIST re: Cybersecurity Framework (Dec. 13, 2013) http://epic.org/redirect/122013-EPIC-NIST-comments.html EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications http://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/ Tech Standard Dropped Because of Suspected NSA Influence Following an extensive public comment process, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has removed a cryptographic algorithm from the agency's guidance on random number generators deployed by government vendors. NIST recommends that current users of "Dual_EC_DRBG" transition to one of the three remaining approved algorithms as quickly as possible. NIST cited an internal evaluation and "a lack of public confidence in the algorithm" for the removal. In 2013, the New York Times reported that the NSA had intentionally weakened cryptographic standards to enable surveillance, raising concerns about the reliability of key Internet standards; NIST subsequently released new guidelines for the development of cryptographic standards and requested public comment. EPIC, joined by several other organizations, urged the agency to explain the extent of the NSA's role in the standards development process. The Computer Security Act of 1987 was passed explicitly to prevent NSA involvement in domestic computer security. NIST: Press Release on Removal of Cryptographic Standard (Apr. 21, 2014) http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/sp800-90-042114.cfm The New York Times: Article on NSA and Cryptography (Sep. 5, 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet- encryption.html NIST: Draft Cryptographic Standards (Feb. 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-nist-draft-crypto.html EPIC: Comments to NIST on Cryptographic Standards (Apr. 18, 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-epic-crypto-comments.html EPIC: Computer Security Act of 1987 http://epic.org/crypto/csa/ Car Data Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate The Senate Commerce Committee has voted unanimously to approve the Driver Privacy Act, a bipartisan bill that would provide privacy safeguards for event data recorders, or "black boxes," in cars. Introduced by Senators John Hoeven (R-ND) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the bill prohibits unauthorized access to data that records driver activities. Under the Act, data could only be obtained with: (1) written consent of all of the car owners or lessees; (2) a court or administrative order; (3) a federal transportation safety investigation if personally identifiable information is redacted; (4) emergency car crash medical response; or (5) traffic safety research if personally identifiable information is redacted. In 2013, EPIC, consumer privacy organizations, and members of the public urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to protect driver privacy by establishing many of the proposed safeguards in the Driver Privacy Act. US Senate: Draft of Driver Privacy Act (Jan. 14, 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/043013-driver-privacy-act.html EPIC et al.: Letter to NHTSA on Event Data Recorders (Feb. 11, 2013) http://epic.org/privacy/edrs/EPIC-Coal-NHTSA-EDR-Cmts.pdf EPIC: Event Data Recorders and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/edrs/default.html Report Reveals Rise in Teens' Desire for Online Privacy A report released by the Intelligence Group, a "youth-focused, research- based consumer insights company," reveals that teens want more online privacy than ever before. According to the report, only 11% of teens currently share "a lot about themselves online" - a 7% decrease from the same age group in 2013. By contrast, 17% of young adults aged 19-24 and 27% of adults aged 25 to 34 currently share "a lot about themselves online." The report also indicates that "about 18% of teens share content on social media at least once a day, including status updates, photos, pins, or articles, compared with 28% of 19- to 24-year-olds and 35% of 25- to 34-year-olds." EPIC recently objected to a settlement agreement that would allow Facebook to use images of teens in online advertising. EPIC has also filed comments with the FTC supporting stronger regulations to protect children's data online. The Intelligence Group: Report on Youth and Online Privacy (Apr. 2014) http://www.cassandra.co/report/ EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Fraley v. Facebook (Feb. 20, 2014) http://epic.org/amicus/facebook/fraley/EPIC-Fraley-Amicus.pdf EPIC: Comments on FTC COPPA Revisions (Dec. 23, 2011) http://epic.org/redirect/122311-epic-coppa-comments.html EPIC: Fraley v. Facebook http://epic.org/amicus/facebook/fraley/ EPIC: COPPA http://epic.org/privacy/kids/ EPIC: FTC http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/ ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== "What You Need To Know About the Cell Phone Privacy Arguments at the Supreme Court Today." The Wire, Apr. 29, 2014. http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/what-you-need-to-know- about-the-cell-phone-privacy-arguments-at-the-supreme-court-today/ 361362/ "What Parents Need To Know About Big Data And Student Privacy." NPR's "All Tech Considered," Apr. 28, 2014. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/04/28/305715935 what-parents-need-to-know-about-big-data-and-student-privacy "EPIC case could define what unclassified records government must turn over." Fierce Government, Apr. 28, 2014. http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/epic-case-could-define-what- unclassified-records-government-must-turn-over/2014-04-28 "The Supreme Court Is About to Decide the Future of Cell-Phone Privacy." National Journal, Apr. 28, 2014. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-supreme-court-is-about-to- decide-the-future-of-cell-phone-privacy-20140428 "Justices to rule on cellphone searches without warrants." USA Today, Apr. 28, 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/28/supreme-court- cellphone-search-arrest/8147327/ "Wearable Devices Raise Privacy Concerns." VOA News, Apr. 25, 2014. http://blogs.voanews.com/techtonics/2014/04/25/wearable-devices-raise- privacy-concerns/ "Parents win against cloud storage of US students' private information." Naked Security, Apr. 24, 2014. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/24/parents-win-against- cloud-storage-of-us-students-private-information/ "Appeals court orders Obama administration to disclose the legal theory for assassination of Americans." BoingBoing, Apr. 22, 2014. http://boingboing.net/2014/04/22/appeals-court-orders-obama-adm.html "White House Updating Online Privacy Policy." Top Tech News, Apr. 21, 2014. http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=111003TULE36 "Obama ordered to divulge legal basis for killing Americans with drones." Ars Technica, Apr. 21, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/obama-ordered-to- divulge-legal-basis-for-killing-americans-with-drones/ "Colby College panel debates privacy, security before Brody Award ceremony." The Morning Sentinel, Apr. 6, 2014. http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Colby_College_panel_debates_ privacy__security_before_Brody_Award_ceremony_.html For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html ======================================================================== [8] EPIC Bookstore ======================================================================== "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, and constitutional values 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 ======================================================================= [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= Computers, Freedom & Privacy. Warrenton, VA, June 8-10, 2014. For More Information: http://cfp.org/2014. Fourth Annual International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy. Washington, DC, June 4-5, 2014. For More Information: http://patientprivacyrights.org/summit/. IEEE Presents "Reintroducing Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century." Boston, 24-26 June 2014. For More Information: http://21stcenturywiener.org. SAVE THE DATE: EPIC's 2014 Champions of Freedom Dinner, Hosted by Bruce Schneier: http://epic.org/june02. ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: http://facebook.com/epicprivacy http://epic.org/facebook http://twitter.com/epicprivacy 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). ======================================================================= Support 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/support 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 and private-sector infringement on constitutional values. ======================================================================= 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 21.08------------------------

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://privacy.org/cgibin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2750

Leave a comment