EPIC Alert 17.05
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 17.05 March 11, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1705.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Files Amicus Brief in Petitioner Privacy Case [2] Supreme Court to Decide if there is Right to Informational Privacy [3] Agency Calls for Further Analysis Before Deploying Imaging Machines [4] EPIC Files Amended Complaint on Google Buzz [5] White House Publishes Outline of Cyber Security Policies [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: "The Watchers" [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Stop Airport Strip Searches! - JOIN Facebook Group "Stop Airport Strip Searches" and INVITE Friends to JOIN - DISPLAY the IMAGE http://thepublicvoice.org/nakedmachine.jpg - SUPPORT EPIC http://www.epic.org/donate/ ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Files Amicus Brief in Petitioner Privacy Case ======================================================================= EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging the Justices to protect the privacy of those who sign petitions. In Doe v. Reed, the Court has been asked to determine whether the state of Washington may force disclosure of the names of citizens who have signed petitions for ballot initiatives. EPIC and twenty-five technology experts and legal scholars filed a brief with the Supreme Court to bring the Court's attention to a number of issues. EPIC's brief first argues that revealing the names would subject signatories to the risk of retribution, citing numerous instances throughout history, both in the United States and abroad, of harassment and retribution against those who sign petitions. These examples include government retribution against petition signatories in such places as China and Venezuela, as well as retribution against those who signed so-called "Communist-inspired" civil rights petitions in the United States in the 1950s. The brief also argues that signing petitions constitutes anonymous speech. It demonstrates the various ways in which anonymity is retained through legal means even if it can not be perfectly preserved through technical means. It also highlights the ways that Washington state law indicates intent to preserve this anonymity. Finally, EPIC's brief argues that signing petitions is similar to casting a vote and should be protected accordingly. The brief argues "that in some areas, a fundamental right to privacy is a necessary safeguard against the consequences of the disclosure of personal information. In few areas can this be more compelling than the expression of support for causes that may be controversial, unpopular, or simply abhorrent." Several other briefs have been filed by interested parties. The response from the state of Washington and its supporters are due to be filed in late March, and the oral argument is scheduled to take place on April 28, 2010. EPIC, Amicus Brief http://epic.org/privacy/reed/EPIC_amicus_Reed.pdf EPIC: Doe v. Reed http://epic.org/privacy/reed/ Supreme Court Docket for Doe v. Reed http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-559.htm ======================================================================= [2] Supreme Court to Decide if there is Right to Informational Privacy ======================================================================= The Supreme Court announced on March 8, 2010, that it will review the Ninth Circuit decision in National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) v. Nelson. On August 30, 2007, the plaintiffs in this case (including scientists, engineers and administrative support personnel at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) sued NASA and the California Institute of Technology, challenging NASA's requirement that "low risk" contract employees undergo in-depth background investigations. Under the policy, every employee was required to give information about residential, educational, employment and military histories, three references that know the applicant well, disclose any illegal drug use within the past year, along with treatment or counseling received for such use. Applicants were further required to sign a release that authorized the government to collect information relating to academic, achievement, performance, attendance, disciplinary history and criminal history record information. Furthermore, each of the applicant's references, employers and landlords was asked whether s/he has any "adverse information" about the applicant's employment, residence or activities. If employees did not agree to submit to the investigations, they would not be employed. On September 24, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the policy, which would have mandated that any employee who refused to complete the paperwork and undergo an investigation by October 5, 2007 would be terminated. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion and they appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and found that the appellants demonstrated serious questions on their claims, and had a good chance of succeeding on the merits. In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit explained that the appellants could succeed on their informational privacy claim, stating that the background investigation forms asked open-ended questions "designed to elicit a wide range of adverse, private information that 'is not generally disclosed by individuals to the public,'" implicating the right to informational privacy. The court found that the questions were not narrowly tailored to meet any legitimate need, and that there were no safeguards to limit the disclosures to information relevant to specific interests. However, the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case this fall. Nelson v. NASA, District Court Opinion http://hspd12jpl.org/files/JudgesOrderReMotion.pdf Nelson v. NASA, Ninth Circuit Opinion http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110ninthciropin.html Petition for Writ of Certiorari http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110scotusblog.html Opposition to Petition for Certiorari http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS_Nelson_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf ======================================================================= [3] Agency Calls for Further Analysis Before Deploying Imaging Machines ======================================================================= The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report regarding the deployment of body scanners. The GAO cited its 2009 recommendations to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA): that the TSA conduct operational tests to ensure that the whole body imaging machines are reliable, and the that TSA conduct an assessment of the whole body imaging machines' vulnerabilities. The 2009 recommendations noted that "[w]ithout operationally testing technologies prior to deployment, TSA does not have reasonable assurance that technologies will perform as intended." In its latest report, the GAO again warned TSA of the importance of full operational tests, citing the "puffer machine" debacle as an example of the government waste that results from insufficient operational testing. The explosives trace-detection portal machines, or "puffer machines," were purchased and installed in 34 airports before the agency halted their installation and eventually their use due to maintenance problems. The GAO also expressed concern over TSA's lack of complete risk assessments and inability to "provide documentation to show how they have addressed the concerns raised in the 2009 GAO report regarding the susceptibility of the technology to terrorist tactics." The recent report also criticized the TSA's handling of its watchlists, including the no-fly list, stating that "the government lacks an up-to-date strategy and implementation plan—supported by a clearly defined leadership or governance structure--which are needed to enhance the effectiveness of terrorist-related screening and ensure accountability." The GAO concluded that it is unclear whether the body scanners or other technologies would have detected the weapon used in the December 25 attempted attack. In a related matter, diplomats from Pakistan recently departed the United States abruptly after they were asked to undergo a body scan at Ronald Regan National Airport in Washington, DC. Pakistan is one of 14 Muslim countries for which the United States has mandated enhanced screening practices. The trip was arranged by the American Embassy in Pakistan to promote goodwill between the countries. The New York times described the incident as a "public relations fiasco." GAO 2010 Report http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-401T GAO 2009 Recommendations http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-128 EPIC Whole Body Imaging and Body Scanners http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ Upset by U.S. Security Pakistanis Return Home as Heroes, N.Y. Times, Mar. 10, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world/asia/10pstan.html ======================================================================= [4] EPIC Files Amended Complaint on Google Buzz ======================================================================= EPIC has filed a supplement to its earlier complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, urging the FTC to investigate Google Buzz. EPIC's original complaint cited clear harms to service subscribers, and alleged that the change in business practices "violated user expectations, diminished user privacy, contradicted Google's privacy policy, and may have violated federal wiretap laws." The FTC sent a letter to EPIC regarding the February 2010 EPIC complaint. In the letter, the Bureau of Consumer Protection Director states that the complaint "raises interesting issues that relate to consumer expectations about the collection and use of their data." Further, the FTC Director highlighted the importance of having consumers "understand how their data will be used" and allowing consumers the "opportunity to exercise meaningful control over such uses." EPIC's amended complaint, which was filed a few days after receiving the FTC's letter, describes how Google Buzz violated Google's own privacy policy for Gmail. EPIC states, "In whole and in part, the Gmail Privacy Notice describes the collection and use of personal data for the purpose of providing the Gmail email service." Creating Google Buzz, a social networking tool, within this email service constitutes a "clear contradiction between the Gmail policy in place at the time Buzz was released and the use of Gmail account information by Google for the Buzz service..." EPIC urged the FTC to investigate Google's practices, compel Google to make Google Buzz an opt-in service, and compel Google to cease using Gmail users' private address book contacts to compile their Buzz social networking lists. EPIC's Amended Complaint in In re Google Buzz http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110googlebuzzcomp.html EPIC's original complaint in In re Google Buzz http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/googlebuzz/GoogleBuzz_Complaint.pdf Letter from FTC to EPIC regarding Google Buzz complaint http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110ftcletter.html EPIC: In re Google Buzz http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/googlebuzz ======================================================================= [5] White House Publishes Outline of Cyber Security Policies ======================================================================= The White House has made a description of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative available online for public viewing. The Initiative has three major goals: "to establish a front line of defense against today's immediate threats[,] to defend against the full spectrum of threats[,] and to strengthen the future cybersecurity environment." President Obama plans to incorporate the Initiative as a key element in a national U.S. cybersecurity strategy. The Initiative was developed with the help of privacy experts within the government. According to the National Security Council, safeguarding "civil liberties and privacy rights remain fundamental objectives in the implementation of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative." President Obama also identified "enhanced information sharing" as one of the central components of cybersecurity. The 12 initiatives cover a wide range of government activity, from cyber education to intrusion detection. More specifically, the initiatives include "connecting current cyber ops centers to enhance situational awareness," heightening security of classified networks, and implementing a "government-wide cyber counterintelligence plan." However, the text of the underlying legal authority for cybersecurity still remains secret. EPIC has been involved in ongoing litigation regarding a Freedom of Information Act request for the text of the critical cybersecurity document NSPD 54 that President Bush signed in 2008. Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110initiative.html White House announcement regarding Transparent Cybersecurity http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110whannounce.html EPIC: NSPD-54 FOIA complaint http://www.epic.org/foia/NSPD54_complaint.pdf EPIC: NSPD-54 FOIA request http://www.epic.org/foia/FOIAapp112409.pdf EPIC: EPIC Sues NSA to Force Disclosure of Cyber Security Authority http://epic.org/2010/02/epic-sues-nsa-to-force-disclos.html EPIC: EPIC Seeks Records on Google-NSA Relationship http://epic.org/2010/02/epic-seeks-records-on-google-n.html ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= Study Ranks Top 20 Companies for Privacy in 2010, Facebook Off the List Ponemon Institute released its annual study identifying the top twenty companies that are most trusted for privacy. American Express was ranked first, earning the Most Trusted for Privacy distinction for the fifth year in a row. Facebook suffered several privacy missteps over the last year, including a recent change in privacy settings at the end of 2009. As a result, Facebook failed to make the 2010 list. Google, however, returned to the Top 20, ranked at 13. The survey also produced significant findings regarding consumer attitudes towards privacy, including the finding that consumers feel they are losing control over their personal information. Further, the responses revealed that consumers' fear of identity theft is the main factor for brand trust diminishment, while a company's implementation of privacy features contribute to brand trust. Other significant positive factors were limits on the collection of personal information and online anonymity. Ponemon Institute http://www.ponemon.org/index.php Ponemon Institute's Annual Study on Most Trusted Sites http://www.ponemon.org/news-2/26 EPIC: Complaint in In re Facebook http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110fbcompl.html Congress Renews PATRIOT Act without Privacy Amendments After months of debate, Congress has voted to extend the three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act for one year with no alteration. The provisions, concerning business records, roving wiretaps, and "lone wolf" investigations, give federal law enforcement agencies broad powers to gather information on Americans. The Senate bill passed by voice vote, and the House bill as an amendment to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009, by a vote of 315-97. Both the Senate and House Judiciary committees proposed bills to renew these provisions with reforms that would establish greater oversight, but neither bill went to a floor vote. Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3961: EPIC: PATRIOT Act http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ EPIC: PATRIOT Act Extension http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/extension/ Judge Waits to Decide on Proposed Settlement in Facebook Privacy Case Following a hearing last week, U.S. District Court Judge Seeborg reserved decision about the approval of Facebook's proposed 9.5 million dollar settlement in a case involving Facebook Beacon. According to the settlement terms, Facebook would contribute about $6 million to the establishment of a privacy organization. Facebook, however, would maintain control over this organization, as Facebook's top lobbyist would become co-President and all significant decisions would require a unanimous vote. EPIC and several other privacy organizations, including the Consumer Federation of America and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, have written a letter to Judge Seeborg, ask him to reject the settlement as proposed Facebook Beacon Settlement Terms http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/Files/SettlementAgreement.pdf Facebook's Proposed Bylaws for the Privacy Foundation http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/Files/ByLawAndFormation.pdf EPIC: Letter to Judge Seeborg regarding Facebook Beacon Settlement http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_Beacon_Letter.pdf EPIC: Facebook Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ President Obama Nominates Brill and Ramirez to be FTC Commissioners President Obama nominated Julie Brill and Edith Ramirez to be commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, filling seats left vacant by Deborah Majoras and Pamela Jones Harbor. Brill, North Carolina's top consumer advocate, serves as the senior deputy attorney general and chief of consumer protection and antitrust for the North Carolina Department of Justice. Ramirez, who specializes in intellectual property and complex litigation matters, is a partner in a Los Angeles, California law firm and has experience representing companies like Mattel, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corp. In a press release, President Obama stated, "These individuals bring a depth of experience to their respective roles, and I am confident they will serve my administration and the American people well. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead." Julie Brill Biography http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-programs/cpc-09/bios/brill.pdf Edith Ramirez Biography http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/ramirez-edith.aspx Statement of Jon Leibowitz on Senate Confirmation of new FTC Commissioners http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/commissioners.shtm Privacy Violations Occur with Collecting Stop-and-Frisk Data in New York On February 16, 2010, the New York Police Department released data for 2009 showing a ten percent rise in the number of New Yorkers being stopped by police. A total of 575,304 individuals were stopped, and 87 percent were Black and Hispanic. Of these stops, only 1.3 percent resulted in discovery of a weapon, and 6 percent resulted in arrests. Under the state's stop, question and frisk policy, police officers are authorized to stop, question and possibly frisk an individual they reasonably believe is about to commit, is committing or has committed a crime. Personal information is collected on a UF-250 form, which requires an officer to document an individual's name, address, age, gender, race and physical description. Consequently, innocent individuals who are stopped, questioned or frisked have their personal information stored in a Police Department database, even if the individual is not arrested. Center for Constitutional Rights, Press Release on NYPD 2009 Stop, Question and Frisk Data http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110ccrpressrelease.html New York Police Dept. 2009 Stop, Question and Frisk Data http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110nypddata.html New York Police Dept. 2005-2008 Stop, Question and Frisk Data http://ccrjustice.org/racial-disparity-nypd-stops-and-frisks#2 New York Police Dept., What is a stop, question, and frisk encounter? http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/faq/faq_police.shtml#stop Senate Holds Hearing on Internet Freedom On March 2, 2010, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law held a hearing on "Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law," which focused on information technology industry business practices in countries that restrict the Internet. The Senate hearing come one month after Secretary Clinton delivered a speech on Internet freedom. Following the speech, EPIC and 29 experts of technology and privacy wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, urging the United States to begin the process of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on Privacy, which seeks to protect fundamental human rights as technology advances. EPIC made the same recommendation in statements for the record for a House hearing on Google and U.S. Cyberspace Policy, and for the Senate hearing on Internet Freedom. Secretary Clinton's Speech on Internet Freedom http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm EPIC: Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Clinton http://epic.org/privacy/intl/EPIC_Clinton_ltr_1-10.pdf U.S. Department of State Letter regarding Clinton Letter http://epic.org/privac/internet/StateDept_Response_Letter.pdf National Security Presidential Directive-54 Complaint http://epic.org/foia_1/NSPD54_complaint.pdf Massachusetts Data Protection Law Goes into Effect Massachusetts’s new data protection law went into effect at the beginning of March. The law applies to all companies that own or license the personal information of Massachusetts residents. According to the new regulations, companies are now required to create a comprehensive security program that details how personal information will be safeguarded. Governor Deval Patrick stated, "Consumers should feel confident that their personal information is protected, and not exposed to loss or theft. These regulations improve the safety of personal information, while giving businesses the flexibility to secure that information without undue burden." Massachusetts Statute, 201 CMR 17.00: Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf Statute's FAQ page http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf Press Release from MA Governor http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110magovpressrelease.html EPIC: Privacy and Identity Theft http://epic.org/privacy/idtheft/ ======================================================================= [7] EPIC Bookstore: "The Watchers" ======================================================================= "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State" by Shane Harris Journalist Shane Harris's new book The Watchers attempts to present a comprehensive chronicle of the last twenty-five years in the world of electronic surveillance conducted by the American federal government. He traces the careers of five men who have been integral to that story: National Security Advisor Admiral John Poindexter, Army Major Erik Kleinsmith of the Special Operations Command, Director of the NSA and CIA, and Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael Hayden, and Director of National Intelligence Vice Adm. Mike McConnell. Through the lives of these men, Harris tells how massive data-mining programs were born in shadows, thrust into the spotlight, and then pulled back into secrecy. Harris mostly tells the story chronologically, reconstructed from personal interviews, congressional testimony, old emails, and other records. He focuses significantly more attention on Poindexter than on his other subjects, so that at times the book reads like a biography, rather than a study of a history, although this may be the result of Poindexter's direct involvement in so many of the relevant events. Harris's presentation of Poindexter is cautiously sympathetic, and paints a portrait of a man loyal to his country and sure of his own ideas, sometimes lacking the ability to see the objections or reasons not to move forward. Poindexter got his start in the data analysis business shortly after the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, when he and a young Oliver North determined that more effective combination of existing intelligence could have predicted and prevented the attacks. From that moment forward, Harris describes Poindexter's singleminded pursuit of the goal that eventually became the name of his 2002 surveillance program: Total Information Awareness. Harris chronicles Poindexter's repeated clashes with privacy advocates and members of Congress over his programs, including EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg. Poindexter believed that independent oversight would be unnecessary because he developed his system to monitor its own users. Ultimately, The Watchers ends ominously. The story is not one of government actors who tried to set up extensive electronic surveillance, met with resistance, and backed down. Rather, it is the story of systems of surveillance that currently exist in unknown form. As the book portrays them, nearly every major spying program developed in the last twenty-five years lives on in some way or another. For instance, according to Harris, the widely-denounced Total Information Awareness program was shut down within DARPA by congressional action, but almost certainly lives on within the NSA. Thus, Poindexter may be out of the picture, but his legacy remains with us. --Jared Kaprove ================================ EPIC Publications: "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2008," edited by Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC 2008). Price: $60. http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2008/ Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws. This updated version includes new material regarding the substantial FOIA amendments enacted on December 31, 2007. Many of the recent amendments are effective as of December 31, 2008. The standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2008 volume is the 24th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. ================================ "Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98. 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: https:/mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= "IAPP 10th Anniversary Webcast" National Press Club, Washington, DC, March 16, 2010 For more information: http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110event1.html "Third Annual Freedom of Information Day Celebration: Washington College of Law, Washington, DC, March 16, 2010 For more information: http://www.epic.org/redirect/031110event2.html "Privacy 2010" Stanford, CA, March 23 - 25, 2010. For more information: http://codex.stanford.edu/privacy2010 "Smartgrid Policy Summit" Washington, DC, April 8, 2010 For more information: http://summit.utc.org/content/educational-program "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy" San Jose, June 15-18, 2010. For more information: http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?p=6 "32nd Int'l Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners" Jerusalem, October 2010. For more information: http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJEng/RashutTech/News/conference2010.htm ======================================================================= 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 17.05 ------------------------ .
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.