Focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues

EPIC Alert 19.17

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 19.17 September 14, 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.17.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== [1] EPIC Urges Court to Require Body Scanner Rulemaking [2] Pew Survey: Most Mobile Users Avoid Apps on Privacy Grounds [3] EPIC Supreme Court Brief: Investigative Techniques Not 'Infallible' [4] US Consumer Groups Endorse Proposed European Privacy Law [5] 2012 Election Platforms Address Privacy Rights [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] Book Review: 'Power and Constraint' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Join the Coalition to Oppose RFID Tracking in Schools! READ the Position Paper: http://epic.org/redirect/083012-spychips.html LEARN about RFID Tracking: http://epic.org/privacy/rfid/ SUPPORT EPIC: http://epic.org/donate ======================================================================== [1] EPIC Urges Court to Require Body Scanner Rulemaking ======================================================================== EPIC has filed a response in the case to force the TSA to initiate a public rulemaking on airport body scanners. EPIC had originally filed suit in July 2010 to suspend the body scanner program. In July 2011, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the TSA should have initiated a public rulemaking before deploying body scanners as a primary screening method, and ordered the agency to begin that process "promptly." More than a year has passed since that court order. Citing the agency's extraordinary delay in seeking public comment on the controversial program, EPIC recently urged the court to require the TSA begin the comment process in 60 days or suspend the program entirely. In a petition for Writ of Mandamus, EPIC argued that the TSA's delay "poses risks to traveler safety," "defies the APA statutory deadlines and prevents judicial review," and is unlawful. In July, a coalition of 10 organizations, led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of EPIC. Without a court decision, the brief maintains, "the TSA will be able to continue to evade judicial review, leaving the public with no meaningful recourse." The DC Circuit Court subsequently ordered the TSA to respond to EPIC's mandamus petition. In the TSA's initial response to EPIC's petition, the agency claimed that the earliest possible date it could "finalize documents" before beginning the public comment process would be "the end of February 2013." EPIC's reply pointed out the illegality of the agency's delay and rebutted the agency's excuses. EPIC: Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Mandamus (Sept. 10, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-Mandamus-Reply.pdf DC Circuit Court: Order to TSA to Conduct Rulemaking (Aug. 1, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-v-DHS-Order-8-1-12.pdf EPIC: Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Jul. 17, 2012) http://epic.org/redirect/081512-mandamus.html Coalition in Support of EPIC: Brief on Petition (Jul. 19, 2012) http://epic.org/redirect/081512-coalition-mandamus-support.html DHS: Opposition to Petition for Mandamus (Aug. 30, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/DHS-Response-in-Opposition.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) http://epic.org/redirect/081512-epicvdhs-scanners.html ======================================================================= [2] Pew Survey: Most Mobile Users Avoid Apps on Privacy Grounds ======================================================================= A new survey by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project has found that many mobile device users have uninstalled or avoided certain apps due to concerns about the apps' user privacy. Specifically, 54% of mobile users have decided to not install an app after discovering the amount of information it collected, and 30% of mobile users uninstalled an app after discovering that it did not meet their privacy standards. Pew Research surveyed 2,254 adults between March 15 and April 3, 2012. Eighty-eight percent of adults reported owning smartphones, and 43% said that they download apps for their phones. A majority of respondents (57%) either had avoided an app or uninstalled it due to privacy concerns. Physical security was also an issue for respondents; 31% reported experiencing a lost or stolen phone, and 12% claimed that others had violated their privacy by accessing their phone in an unapproved manner. Finally, mobile device owners reported using a variety of techniques to protect their data, including backing up information, clearing browsing histories, or turning off location tracking. The Pew survey comes at a time when the privacy multistakeholder process initiated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is centered on mobile app transparency. NTIA has hosted three meetings but has yet to make progress on substantive issues. The Obama Administration hopes the meetings will generate a "code of conduct" that will result in app vendors' voluntary implementation of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, a list of recommended privacy practices released by the White House in early 2012. The Pew smartphone survey is the second poll this year that indicates users are becoming more active in protecting the privacy of their digital profiles. Compared to 2009, more users are deleting friends on social media accounts, deleting comments made by others on their profiles, and removing their names from tagged photos of themselves. Pew: App Survey (Sept. 5, 2012) http://epic.org/redirect/091312-pew-mobile-survey.html Pew: Social Media Survey (Feb. 24, 2012) http://epic.org/redirect/091312-pew-social-survey.html The White House: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (Feb. 2012) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf The White House: Consumer Data Privacy http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf NTIA: Mobile App Transparency http://epic.org/redirect/091312-NTIA-mobile-transparency.html EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/survey/ EPIC: iPhone Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/apple.html ======================================================================== [3] EPIC Supreme Court Brief: Investigative Techniques Not 'Infallible' ======================================================================== EPIC has submitted a "friend of the court" brief in the US Supreme Court case Florida v. Harris, which is scheduled for oral argument in October. Florida v. Harris involves a physical search of a car after a "sniff test" by a narcotics-detection dog. The Florida Supreme Court held that in order to establish probable cause necessary to support the vehicle's warrantless search, the government must provide some evidence to indicate that the narcotics-detection dog was reliable. Florida v. Harris follows a similar 2005 case, Illinois v. Caballes, in which the Court ruled that a sniff by a trained dog does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment if the sniff does not "reveal" any non-contraband information. EPIC's brief seeks to uphold the Florida Supreme Court decision in favor of Harris. The brief argues that the government should bear the burden of establishing the reliability of advanced investigative techniques, including the use of electronic devices that attempt to identify contraband materials, communications, or media. In so doing, the EPIC brief points to a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report that discussed the "forensic community's 'current fragmentation and inconsistent practices,' including a lack of "'uniformity in certification of forensic practitioners.'" Subsequent hearings in the US Senate Judiciary Committee have further explored this problem. EPIC's brief highlights the relationship between the drug-detection dog in Harris and similar, potentially unreliable, electronic investigative techniques, including remote terahertz scanners, whole- body imaging devices, and the FBI's Carnivore electronic interception software. The EPIC brief asks the Supreme Court to uphold the decision in Harris in order to ensure that such techniques are not used to support warrantless searches that reveal private information. EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Florida v. Harris (Aug. 31, 2012) http://epic.org/amicus/harris/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf EPIC: Florida v. Harris http://epic.org/amicus/harris/ National Academies: Report on Forensic Science in the US (Aug. 2009) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf US Senate: Hearing on Improving Forensic Science (Jul. 18, 2012) http://epic.org/redirect/091312-senate-forensics-hearing.html EPIC: Florida v. Jardines http://epic.org/amicus/jardines/default.html ======================================================================= [4] US Consumer Groups Endorse Proposed European Privacy Law ======================================================================= In a recent letter to members of the European Parliament, EPIC and a coalition of more than 20 other US consumer organizations expressed support for the "General Data Protection Regulation," the new European data protection law. The coalition's letter affirms that the law "provides important new protections for the privacy and security of consumers." The letter also states that the European effort will raise privacy standards for consumers outside the EU. BEUC, the association of European consumer groups, has also expressed support for the new law. The General Data Protection Regulation is a comprehensive update of the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive and adopts innovative new approaches to privacy protection, such as "Privacy by Design." The Regulation improves consumer privacy and security by restoring consumer control over personal data - for example, by strengthening meaningful consent requirements, emphasizing data minimization and transparency in data practices, and establishing stronger consumer remedies and redress rights. The Regulation also recognizes "the right to be forgotten," which encourages data controllers and processors to erase consumer personal data upon request and abstain from further disseminating the erased data. The letter from the US consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the US Public Interest Research Group, argues that the new European Union privacy law "provides important new protections for the privacy and security of consumers." The letter also suggests recommendations to bolster the Regulation, and recommends changes including "narrowing the scope of general exceptions, strengthening the right to data portability, promoting greater transparency in data practices (particularly regarding the profiling and 'scoring' of consumers), restricting the circumstances for 'blanket' consent, and including non-economic loss in the context of data breach notification." The coalition further lauds European data protection because, as the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue has noted previously, "it tends to be 'technologically neutral, focusing on the collection and use of personal information and not the specific technologies involved.'" In 2009, EPIC joined 110 other civil society groups and 106 technical and legal experts in endorsing the Madrid Privacy Declaration, which calls for the establishment of "a new international framework for privacy protection . . . based on the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights, and support for democratic institutions." The Declaration also supports Convention 108 of the Council of Europe, which itself seeks to "secure . . . respect for [individual] rights and fundamental freedoms," particularly with respect to privacy. EPIC et al.: Letter to EU re: Data Protection Law (Sept. 5, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/intl/US-Cons-Grps-Support-EU-Priv-Law.pdf EU Commission: General Data Protection Regulation (Jan. 2012) http://epic.org/redirect/091312-eu-data-regulation.html EU Commission: 1995 EU Data Protection Directive http://epic.org/redirect/091312-eu-1995-directive.html BEUC: Data Protection Position Paper (Jul. 27, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/BEUC-Position-Paper.pdf The Public Voice: Madrid Privacy Declaration (Nov. 2009) http://www.thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ Council of Europe: Convention 108 (Aug. 2005) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/108.htm EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive http://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html ======================================================================== [5] 2012 Party Platforms Address Privacy Rights ======================================================================== Both the US Democratic and Republican Parties have included privacy rights in their 2012 party platforms, which were unveiled at their respective party conventions in August and September. The 2012 Democratic National Platform supports the Obama Administration's Internet Privacy Bill of Rights, which was announced in early 2012. Separate provisions in the platform call for privacy protections for broadband deployment, intellectual property enforcement, and cybersecurity laws. "As technology advances," the platform text states, "we will continue to work with all stakeholders to protect the security of the nation and its knowledge assets, U.S. intellectual property, the functioning of fair and competitive markets, and the privacy, free expression, and due process rights of Americans." The Democratic platform opposes voter identification laws, which it labels "political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens." However, the platform is silent on the Fourth Amendment, and removed the 2008 plank that opposed surveillance of individuals not suspected of a crime. The 2012 Republican National Platform calls for strong constitutional protections for privacy and new safeguards for personal data held by businesses. "We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties," the platform states. The platform criticizes TSA airport screening procedures, "look[s] toward the development of security systems that can replace the personal violation of frisking," and calls for warrant requirements for most law-enforcement-operated drones. However, other provisions endorse voter identification laws and increased disclosure of personal information to the government in the interest of cybersecurity. Other national political parties also have released their official platforms. The Libertarian Party platform includes a separate section on "personal privacy" and asserts, "Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes." The Green Party's 2012 platform states, "our civil liberties of privacy and free speech are impaired by the excesses of the USA PATRIOT Act and kindred new laws that use a national tragedy . . . as an excuse to impose ubiquitous surveillance and control over citizens." The Constitution Party supports "privacy legislation that prohibits private parties from discriminating against individuals who refuse to disclose or obtain a Social Security number." Democratic Party: 2012 National Platform http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform Republican Party: 2012 National Platform http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/ Libertarian Party: 2012 National Platform http://www.lp.org/platform US Green Party: 2012 National Platform http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/Platform-2012.html Constitution Party: 2012 National Platform http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php EPIC: Privacy and Consumer Profiling http://epic.org/privacy/profiling/default.html EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/voting/photo-identification.html EPIC: National Security Letters http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/ EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications. http://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/ EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones http://epic.org/privacy/drones/ ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== EPIC, Others Ask Supreme Court to Review Controversial State FOI Law EPIC and several other leading open-government organizations have filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of a petition for US Supreme Court review of a case challenging the Virginia Freedom of Information law, which allows only Virginia residents and news media representatives to access state public records. The brief argues that Virginia's "citizens-only" provision is constitutionally impermissible because it unnecessarily burdens the rights of individuals and organizations outside of Virginia. The case is of particular interest to EPIC; state FOI laws are often necessary for oversight of new surveillance programs. In 2008, after a successful FOIA lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia, EPIC obtained documents revealing an agreement to limit oversight of a State Fusion Center. EPIC et al.: Brief in McBurney & Hilbert v. VA (Aug. 2012) http://epic.org/amicus/EPIC-McBurney-Amicus-Brief.pdf Deepak Gupta et al.: Petition for US Supreme Court Hearing (June 2012) http://guptabeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/McBurneyPetition.pdf EPIC: FOIA Suit Against VA re: Fusion Centers (Mar. 2008) http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/VA_FOIA_lawsuit_032108.pdf EPIC: Documents on VA Fusion Center as Result of FOIA Suit (2008) http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/MOU.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. VA Dept. of State Police: Fusion Center Secrecy Bill http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/ EPIC: FOIA Litigation Docket http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a Texas law that would require voters to present photo identification in order to vote. Calling the law "the most stringent in the country," the court stated that "record evidence suggests that [the law], if implemented, would in fact have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic and African American voters." Therefore, the court held, the law violates section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires "covered jurisdictions" to show that new voting procedures, such as voter ID requirements, are nondiscriminatory before they can be implemented. The court's ruling follows the US Department of Justice's previous rejection of the law through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. DC Circuit Court: Decision in Texas v. Holder (Aug. 30, 2012) http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-voter-id.pdf US DOJ: Initial Rejection of Texas Voter ID Law (Mar. 12, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/voting/DOJ-Determination-TX-Voter-ID.pdf US DOJ: 1965 Voting Rights Act http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/voting/photo-identification.html EPIC: Voting Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/voting/ EPIC: Voter Registration and Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/voting/register/ EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County https://epic.org/privacy/voting/crawford/ German Consumer Group Says Facebook App Center Violates Privacy The Federation of German Consumer Organizations has alleged that Facebook's App Center violates German law. According to the group's complaint, the App Center does not provide a complete disclosure of the purposes for which apps collect data, therefore not providing for the "informed consent" required by law. The group says it would consider legal action if Facebook did not correct the problem by September 4. The allegations follow repeated requests by German data protection officials that Facebook disable its facial recognition software. In late 2011, the Federal Trade Commission finalized a settlement with Facebook that follows from complaints filed by EPIC and other consumer and privacy organizations in 2009 and 2010. The settlement bars Facebook from changing privacy settings without the affirmative consent of users, or misrepresenting the privacy or security of users' personal information. In response to a dissenting opinion by FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, the FTC clarified that "Facebook will be liable for conduct by apps that contradict Facebook's promises about the privacy or security practices of these apps." Fed. of German Consumer Groups: Complaint re: Facebook (Aug. 27, 2012) http://www.vzbv.de/10146.htm FTC: Final Settlement with Facebook re: EPIC Complaints (Nov. 29, 2011) http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/111129facebookagree.pdf FTC: Statement of the Commission re: Facebook Settlement (Aug. 10, 2012) http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/120810facebookstmtcomm.pdf EPIC: In re: Facebook Complaint (Dec. 17, 2009) http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC-FacebookComplaint.pdf EPIC: In re: Facebook 2 Complaint (May 5, 2010) http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_FTC_FB_Complaint.pdf EPIC: Facebook Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ New Report Finds Few Protections For Pervasive Drone Surveillance The Congressional Research Service has released a new report on "Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations." The report analyzes the current state of the law for domestic aerial surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, as well as recently introduced bills about drone surveillance. In testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management earlier this year, EPIC's Amie Stepanovich noted, "there are substantial legal and constitutional issues involved in the deployment of aerial drones by federal agencies that need to be addressed." EPIC recommended that the FAA develop privacy rules, that DHS conduct a privacy assessment, and that Congress establish new privacy safeguards. In early 2012, EPIC, joined by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, petitioned the FAA to begin a rulemaking on the privacy impact of drone use. Congressional Research Service: Report on Drones (Sept. 6, 2012) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf EPIC: Testimony Before US House on Drones http://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPIC-Drone-Testimony-7-12.pdf EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA on Drones (Mar. 8, 2012) http://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones http://epic.org/privacy/drones/ CPDP 2013 Calls for Papers in Advance of January Conference The 6th Annual Computers, Privacy and Data Protection Conference has announced a Call for Papers. The conference will take place January 23-25, 2013, in Brussels. Both experienced and junior researchers, as well as Ph.D. candidates, are invited to submit work. The theme of the 2013 CPDP conference is "Reloading Data Protection." Organizers are particularly interested in papers focusing on technology's relationship to privacy, data protection, non-discrimination and surveillance. Deadline for submissions is October 19, 2012. EPIC is a participant in CPDP conferences and presents the "EPIC International Champion of Freedom Awards" at CPDP. CPDP: 2013 Conference www.cpdpconferences.org CPDP 2013: Call for Papers http://www.cpdpconferences.org/callforpapers.html#top CPDP 2013: Paper Submission Guidelines https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=cpdp2013 EPIC: 2012 International Champion of Freedom Awards http://epic.org/2012/01/epic-gives-2012-privacy-champi.html EPIC: Press Release on Intl. Champion of Freedom Awards (Jan. 26, 2012) http://epic.org/press/Stoddart-Release-EPIC-Award.pdf EPIC: EU Law http://epic.org/redirect/091312-epic-eu-law.html ======================================================================= [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================= "Myspace Settles Privacy Complaint -- Terms Less Restrictive Than Facebook's." MediaPost, Sept. 11, 2012. http://epic.org/redirect/091312-mediapost-myspace-epic.html "Privacy Group Pushes TSA to Start Review of Airport Screening Program." Legal Times, Sept. 11, 2012. http://epic.org/redirect/091312-legaltimes-epic-tsa.html "Tracking School Children With RFID Tags? It’s All About the Benjamins." Wired, Sept. 7, 2012. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/rfid-chip-student-monitoring/ "Drone use expands to TV stations, undermines public safety, privacy." Examiner.com, Sept. 5, 2012. http://epic.org/redirect/091312/examiner-epic-drones.html "Smartphone Owners Clear Search History, Shed Apps, To Protect Privacy." MediaPost, Sept. 5, 2012. http://epic.org/redirect/091312/mediapost-epic-smartphones.html "U.S. Groups Urge EU to Resist Weakening Privacy Proposal." National Journal, Sept. 5, 2012. http://epic.org/redirect/091312-natjournal-epic-eu.html "TSA Denies Stonewalling Nude Body-Scanner Court Order." Wired, Aug. 30, 2012. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/tsa-no-scanner-stonewalling/ "Republicans call for reduced regulation online, more data protection." Ars Technica, Aug. 29, 2012. http://epic.org/redirect/091312-gop-epic-privacy.html For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html ======================================================================= [8] Book Review: 'Power and Constraint' ======================================================================= "Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency after 9/11," Jack Goldsmith http://epic.org/redirect/091312-power-and-constraint-goldsmith.html Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith's new book, "Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency after 9/11," attempts to survey and analyze the extent of presidential power in the national security realm. In particular, Goldsmith looks at the evolution of transparency, legalization, and accountability in the George W. Bush Administration's second term and Obama Administration's first term. Goldsmith argues that the complex interactions of institutions and agents, both in and out of government, have created a de facto system of checks and balances on executive power - what he calls "the presidential synopticon." Unfortunately, "Power and Constraint" is largely a nominal walkthrough of today's national security landscape: heavy on facts and data, but vague on satisfying answers. After discussing pervasive government leaks, overuse of secrecy, and increasing reliance on lawyers, Goldsmith draws no conclusions about whether this new system of accountability is better or worse than in previous eras. "Power and Constraint" begins by noting that President Obama has retained many of the controversial national security and surveillance programs initiated under President Bush, and in some cases has broken new ground, like the expansion of targeted drone killings. But the presidential synopticon has developed in parallel, driven by factors like "accountability journalism," government leaks due to new technologies, increasing internal oversight in the form of investigators general, the "lawyering up" of the military at all stages of decision- making, and the Supreme Court Guantanamo Bay lawsuits. Goldsmith argues that these factors lead the President, the CIA, and the military to focus not only on existing laws but also on the "CNN factor"; i.e., What will the public's reaction be when a certain program is leaked? As a result, according to Goldsmith, the synopticon exerts substantial influence over national security policy even in a period of unprecedented executive power. Those who prioritize civil liberties and oppose many Bush-era national security programs will be dissatisfied with the book's lack of hard conclusions. Goldsmith's equivocations are disappointing: President Obama has continued pretty much all of President Bush's questionable national security policies = Bad. But now the CIA has inspectors general and General Petraeus never leaves home without his personal lawyer= Good. To his credit, however, Goldsmith does touch on how the US wound up with this patchwork of oversight. In his view, because Congress gave the President almost carte blanche after 9/11 in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution, the legislative branch lost "legal control on the initiation of military force." According to Goldsmith, we now have more executive transparency thanks to the efforts of journalists, but journalists are not accountable to the public. We now have lawyers ensuring the legality of every military program, but they compound the bureaucracy. We now have more accountability because our secrets leak out, but without secrecy we hamstring our intelligence services. The presidential synopticon is an uneven, inefficient, and cumbersome beast. Meanwhile, Congress and the Supreme Court have abdicated their responsibility to create a more comprehensive system. "It might seem that we should just get the balance of presidential authorities and presidential accountability right in the first place, before the next attack arrives, in order to prevent it," Goldsmith writes. "But we are prisoners of information uncertainty and psychological biases, and government is an imperfect science." Unfortunately, in this case Goldsmith is correct. -- David Brody ================================ 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, 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 ======================================================================= Cato Institute's 11th Annual Constitution Day Conference, 18 September 2012, Washington, DC. For More Information: http://www.cato.org/events/ccs2012/index.html. Symposium on Freedom of Scientific Information, Presented by the Union of Concerned Scientists for Science and Democracy, 25 September 2012, Washington, DC. For More Information: Contact Ashlie Hampton at ahampton@fac.org. 3rd Annual Privacy, ATI and Security Congress. 4-5 October 2012, Ottawa, ON. For More Information: http://www.rebootconference.com/ events/information-privacy-security-congress-2012/. Amsterdam Privacy Conference. 7-10 October 2012, Amsterdam. For More Information: http://www.ivir.nl/news/CallforPapersAPC2012.pdf. 34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy. 23-25 October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay. For more information: http://www.privacyconference2012.org/english/sobre-la-conferencia/ noticias/noticia-destacada. The Public Voice Conference. 22 October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay. For more information: http://www.thepublicvoice.org/. PIPA Conference 2012: "Privacy on the Go." 1-2 November 2012, Calgary, Alberta. For More Information: http://privacyconference2012.ca. "Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: Reloading Data Protection." 23-25 January 2013, Brussels. For More information: http://www.cpdpconferences.org/. ======================================================================= 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 Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET. 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 19.17 ------------------------