EPIC Alert 22.16

=======================================================================
                   E P I C   A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 22.16                                            August 31, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Published by the
      Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
                  Washington, DC

     http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_22.16.html

           "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
                http://epic.org/support


=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================

[1] EPIC's Challenge to FAA Lack of Drone Privacy Moves Forward
[2] Appeals Court Upholds FTC's Data Security Authority  
[3] Federal Appeals Court Revives Driver Privacy Claims 
[4] Without Public Comment, FTC Narrows Section 5 Authority
[5] Privacy in the States:  Delaware and New Hampshire 
[6] News in Brief 
[7] EPIC in the News 
[8] EPIC Book Review:  'Machines of Loving Grace'
[9] Upcoming Conferences and Events



=======================================================================
[1] EPIC's Challenge to FAA Lack of Drone Privacy Moves Forward
=======================================================================

The federal appeals court in Washington, DC federal appeals court has 
ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to respond to EPIC's 
lawsuit concerning the agency's failure to establish privacy safeguards 
prior to the deployment of commercial drones in the United States. 
EPIC filed suit in March 2015 after the FAA failed to establish privacy 
rules for commercial drones as mandated by Congress. The agency had 
asked the DC Circuit to dismiss EPIC's lawsuit, but the appellate court 
directed the parties to prepare a merits briefing for a three-judge 
panel.

EPIC's lawsuit follows a 2012 petition to the FAA backed by more than 
100 organizations and privacy experts. EPIC submitted the petition 
immediately after Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 
of 2012, which requires the FAA to integrate drones into US national 
airspace. The Act also mandates the FAA to develop a "comprehensive 
plan" for the integration and states that" issues, such as privacy and 
national security, need to be taken into consideration." 

In February 2015, the FAA announced a public rulemaking for the 
integration of small commercial drones into the national airspace. EPIC 
filed extensive comments with the FAA, urging the agency to propose 
drone privacy safeguards. "The increasing deployment of drones in the 
national airspace is one of the most significant threats to privacy 
faced by Americans today," EPIC wrote. EPIC requested that the FAA 
propose a number of new privacy rules including use and data retention 
limitations, transparency and public accountability measures and 
minimum security safeguards to protect drones from being hacked.

EPIC further challenged the FAA's failure to propose privacy rules, 
underscored the need for privacy regulations and explained the specific 
privacy rules FAA should have proposed. "Drones cannot be safely 
integrated into or operated within the national airspace until the FAA 
establishes clear privacy rules to limit invasive recording and prevent 
dangerous self help" measures, EPIC argued.


EPIC:  Court Order for Merits Briefing  EPIC v. FAA (Aug. 13, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/083115-drone-court-order.html 

EPIC:  Comments to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Apr. 24, 2015)
    https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/EPIC-FAA-NPRM.pdf 

FAA:  Proposed Rules for Small Commercial Drones (Feb. 23, 2015)
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-23/pdf/2015-03544.pdf 

EPIC:  EPIC v. FAA - Petition for Review (Mar. 31, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/041515-epic-drone-petition.html 

FAA:  Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Feb. 1, 2012)
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf 

FAA:  Comprehensive Drone Plan (Sept. 2013) 
    https://epic.org/redirect/041515-faa-drone-plan.html

EPIC et al.:  Petition to FAA re: Drones (Feb. 24, 2012)
     https://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf 

FAA:  Denial of EPIC Petition to FAA (Nov. 26, 2014)
     https://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-Privacy-Rulemaking-Letter.pdf 

EPIC:  Domestic Drones 
    https://epic.org/privacy/drones/


=======================================================================
[2] Appeals Court Upholds FTC's Data Security Authority 
=======================================================================

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled in favor of the 
Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide, an important case 
concerning the agency's authority to police companies' lax data security 
practices. 

EPIC, joined by leading technical experts and legal scholars, filed a 
2014 "friend of the court" brief, defending the FTC's "critical role in 
safeguarding consumer privacy and promoting stronger security 
standards." EPIC explained that data breaches, which caused more than 
$500 million in damages in 2013 alone, are one American consumers' top 
concerns. EPIC also explained that "The FTC's authority to regulate 
business practices impacting consumer privacy is well established, the 
problem is obvious, and the agency has a clear record of success." 

EPIC further highlighted the cost of identity theft, which grew to 
$7.1 billion in 2013, including the $500 million attributable to 
enormous data breaches at major retailers. "Removing the FTC's 
authority to regulate data security would be to bring dynamite to the
dam," EPIC warned.

In 2012, the FTC brought an action against Wyndham, a major hotel chain, 
after the company failed to protect sensitive customer information, 
including credit card numbers and other personal data. The court found 
that "In total, [hackers] stole personal and financial information for 
hundreds of thousands of customers leading to over $10.6 million 
dollars in fraudulent charges." The FTC also alleged that the company's 
failure to protect this sensitive data was an "unfair and deceptive" 
trade practice. 

In response to the FTC's suit, Wyndham argued that the agency lacked 
authority to enforce security standards, and that the law did not 
provide "fair notice" regarding minimum data security standards. The 
court rejected both arguments, upholding the FTC's authority to police 
companies' data security practices. 

The court found that "In total, [hackers] stole personal and financial 
information for hundreds of thousands of customers leading to over 
$10.6 million dollars in fraudulent charges." The FTC also alleged that 
the company's failure to protect this sensitive data was an "unfair and 
deceptive" trade practice. The also court found that "a company 
does not act equitably when it publishes a privacy policy to attract 
customers who are concerned about data privacy, fails to make good on 
that promise by investing inadequate resources in cybersecurity, 
exposes its unsuspecting customers to substantial financial injury, 
and retains the profits of their business." The court determined that 
Wyndham had fair notice that the company's data security practices 
could be the basis of an unfair practice claim.


3rd Circuit:  Ruling in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp, (Aug. 24, 2015)
    https://epic.org/amicus/ftc/wyndham/Mem-Op-14-3514.pdf

EPIC:  "Friend of the Court" Brief in Wyndham v. FTC (Nov. 12, 2014)     
    https://www.epic.org/amicus/ftc/wyndham/Wyndham-Amicus-EPIC.pdf

EPIC:  Wyndham v. FTC
    https://www.epic.org/amicus/ftc/wyndham/default.html

EPIC:  Consumer Privacy
    https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/

EPIC:  Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications
    https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/

EPIC:  FTC
    http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc


=======================================================================
[3] Federal Appeals Court Revives Driver Privacy Claims 
=======================================================================

In McDonough v. Anoka County, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth 
Circuit has revived several cases brought under the Drivers Privacy 
Protection Act. The plaintiffs, who included female journalists, 
brought suit after learning that their driver records had been accessed 
hundreds of times by state agencies. A lower court had ruled previously 
that the plaintiffs failed to bring the claims in time. 

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit. EPIC 
submitted a 2014 friend of the court brief in the case, arguing that 
"discovery," not "occurrence," is the correct standard for time 
limitations in privacy cases. The "harms stemming from compromised 
personal information," wrote EPIC, "are not always apparent, and in 
many cases are not discoverable for years." 

Although the appellate court ultimately affirmed that some plaintiffs' 
claims were time-barred, it permitted many to proceed. The defendants' 
justifications for accessing the plaintiffs' driving records, wrote the 
court, are not "sufficiently convincing to undermine the reasonable 
inference of impermissible purpose." The court also acknowledged that 
"[EPIC] raises legitimate concerns about the ability of identity 
thieves to utilize sensitive personal information found in motor 
vehicle records and the difficulty in detecting such a crime within the 
applicable limitations period." 

The appellate court has remanded the case to the district court to 
decide on the merits of the revived DPPA claims.


EPIC:  McDonough v. Anoka County
    https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/

EPIC:  Friend of the Court Brief in McDonough (June 4, 2014)
    https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/EPIC-Amicus-McDonough.pdf

Eighth Circuit:  Opinion in McDonough (Aug. 20, 2015)
    https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/Mem-Opinion-14-1754.pdf

District Court of MN:  Opinion in McDonough (Feb. 21, 2014)
    https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/District-Court-Order.pdf

EPIC:  The Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)
    https://epic.org/privacy/drivers/


=======================================================================
[4] Without Public Comment, FTC Narrows Section 5 Authority
=======================================================================

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a "Statement of Principles 
Regarding Enforcement of FTC Act as a Competition Statute." Section 5 
of the FTC Act empowers the agency to prohibit "unfair" business 
practices. This "unfairness" authority is broad and has been used by 
the agency in a variety of cases, recently against the Wyndham hotel 
chain for failing to protect customer records. 

According to the FTC, the newly released Statement "is intended to 
provide a framework" for the agency's exercise of this broad authority. 
However, the Statement raises two issues. First, it appears to narrow 
the Commission's ability to pursue unfair business practices. Second, 
the Statement was announced without any formal opportunity for public 
comment. FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez announced that the Statement 
makes "time-honored principles explicit; it does not signal any change 
of course in our enforcement practices and priorities." In contrast, 
FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen dissented and noted the lack of 
opportunity for public comment. 

EPIC and other organizations have urged the FTC to use Section 5 
authority to address growing concerns about industry consolidation and 
privacy protection. In 2007, for example, EPIC and a coalition of 
privacy advocates urged the FTC to investigate Google's proposed 
acquisition of Internet advertising giant DoubleClick.

EPIC has also noted the FTC's failure to incorporate public comments in 
its proceedings as required by law. In 2013 EPIC brought an FTC 
complaint against Snapchat for falsely claiming that user messages 
would "disappear forever." After a Commission investigation, Snapchat 
entered into a consent order with the agency. EPIC expressed support 
for the order, but criticized the FTC for failing to incorporate public 
comments.  


FTC:  Statement of Principles on FTC Act (Aug. 13, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ftc-principles.html

FTC:  Statement of Chairwoman Ramirez on FTC Act (Aug. 13, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ftc-ramirez-statement

FTC:  Statement of Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen (Aug. 13, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ftc-ohlhausen-statement.html 

EPIC:  Proposed Google/DoubleClick Merger
    https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/

EPIC:  FTC Snapchat Complaint (May 16, 2013)
    https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/EPIC-Snapchat-Complaint.pdf

EPIC:  Comments on FTC - Snapchat Consent Order  (Jun. 9, 2014)
    https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/FTC-Snapchat-Cmts.pdf


=======================================================================
[5] Privacy in the States:  Delaware and New Hampshire 
=======================================================================

The state of Delaware has passed four new privacy laws. Under the 
"Delaware Online Privacy and Protection Act," websites and apps must 
disclose the personally identifiable information they collect and how 
they use this information. The "Student Data Privacy Protection Act" 
enhances student privacy protections by banning companies from selling 
student data or using student data for targeted advertising. The 
"Victim Online Privacy Act" protects domestic violence survivors from 
having certain contact information posted online. The "Employee/
Applicant Protection for Social Media Act" bars employers from 
demanding access to current or prospective employee social media 
accounts. 

New Hampshire has enacted a strong location privacy law that requires a 
judicial warrant for access to cell phone location data. New Hampshire 
joins several other states that protect the privacy of cell phone 
location records, either by public law or court decision. EPIC has 
filed friend of the court briefs in the US Supreme Court and the 
Supreme Court of New Jersey, arguing that location tracking by the 
government is a search under the Fourth Amendment and should be 
conducted only with a judicial warrant.

EPIC's State Policy Project monitors state privacy issues nationwide.


EPIC:  State Policy Project:
	https://www.epic.org/state-policy/

Delaware Online Privacy and Protection Act 
	https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-privacy-act.html

Delaware Student Data Privacy Protection Act
	https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-student-privacy-act.html

Delaware Victim Online Privacy Act
	https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-victim-privacy-act.html

Delaware Employee/Applicant Protection for Social Media Act
	https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-social-privacy-act.html

New Hampshire Location Privacy Law
	http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0468.pdf

EPIC:  Letter to CA Court re: Automated Plate Readers (Jun. 25, 2015)
	https://epic.org/redirect/063015-epic-ca-sc-amicus.html

=======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
=======================================================================

DC Circuit Reverses NSA '215' Ruling, Sends Case Back to Lower Court

A divided panel of the DC Circuit has reversed a lower court's decision 
that the NSA bulk metadata collection program violates the Fourth 
Amendment. The judges in Klayman v. Obama agreed that the plaintiff did 
not have sufficient evidence that his telephone records were collected. 
But the majority of the panel agreed that the plaintiff should be 
allowed to conduct "discovery" to prove standing, and remanded the case 
to the lower court. In 2013, EPIC filed a petition in the US Supreme 
Court, In re EPIC, arguing that the NSA program was unlawful. In 2014, 
EPIC and a broad coalition urged the President to end the NSA 
surveillance program.


DC Court of Appeals:  Decision in Klayman v. Obama (Aug. 28, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DC-appeals-klayman.html 

EPIC:  Klayman v. Obama
    https://epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/klayman/

EPIC:  NSA: Verizon Phone Record Monitoring
    https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/verizon/

EPIC:  In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance
    https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/

EPIC et al.:  Letter to White House re: Section 215 (Jun. 17, 2014)
    https://epic.org/privacy/Coalition-Ltr-to-End-NSA-Bulk-Collection.pdf



FOIA Ombudsman: Investigation of DHS Practices after EPIC Complaint

The federal FOIA ombudsman has informed EPIC that it the office is 
investigating the FOIA practices of six DHS component agencies. In 
2014, EPIC and a dozen open government organizations urged the Office 
of Government Information Services to investigate the impermissible 
closures of FOIA requests. Via so-called "still interested" letters, 
some federal agencies notify FOIA requesters that unprocessed requests 
will be closed by the agency if there is no further communication. EPIC 
and the open government groups object to the practice and reminded OGIS 
that "no provision in the [FOIA] allows for administrative closures." A 
2012 EPIC letter to OGIS led to a reduction of fee payments for FOIA 
requesters.


OGIS:  The Federal FOIA Ombudsman
    https://ogis.archives.gov/about-ogis.htm

EPIC:  Letter from OGIS re: FOIA Admin Closures (Aug. 27, 2015)
    https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ogis-foia-letter.html

Cornell Law School:  Text of the FOIA
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552

EPIC:  Letter to OGIS re: FOIA Procedures (Jun. 1, 2012)
    https://epic.org/foia/dhs/EPIC-DHS-FOIA-OGIS-Ltr-06-01-12.pdf

EPIC:  Letter from OGIS re: FOIA Fee Payments (Oct. 19, 2012)
    https://epic.org/open_gov/foia/OGIS-to-EPIC-re-DHS-10-19-12.pdf

EPIC:  FOIA Cases
    https://epic.org/foia/

EPIC:  FOIA ROCKS
    FOIA.ROCKS


    
Professor Latanya Sweeney Launches New Privacy and Technology Journal

Harvard Professor Dr. Latanya Sweeney has launched Technology Science, 
a new online journal for "original material dealing primarily with a 
social, political, personal, or organizational benefit or adverse 
consequence of technology." The current issue of Technology Science 
features research on Facebook Messenger's geolocation collection and 
disclosure, medical privacy and price discrimination in international 
travel. EPIC has worked extensively to promote locational privacy, 
medical privacy and fair and transparent decision-making. Professor 
Sweeney serves as a member of the EPIC Advisory Board.


Data Privacy Lab:  Latanya Sweeney, Ph.D.
    http://dataprivacylab.org/people/sweeney/

Technology Science Magazine
    http://jots.pub/

EPIC:  Locational Privacy
    https://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/

EPIC:  Medical Record Privacy
    https://epic.org/privacy/medical/

EPIC:  Algorithmic Transparency: End Secret Profiling
    https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/

EPIC:  EPIC Advisory Board
    https://epic.org/epic/advisory_board.html

=======================================================================
[7] EPIC in the News
=======================================================================

"Uber Moves to Better Protect that Trove of Customer Data It Collects."
Bloomberg BNA, Aug. 31, 2015.
    http://www.bna.com/uber-moves-better-b17179935386/

"Federal Court Gives Government OK to Collect Your Phone Records."
IVN.us, Aug. 31, 2015.
    http://ivn.us/2015/08/31/federal-court-gives-government-ok-
    collect-phone-records/
    
"Tools for Tailored Learning May Expose Students' Personal Details."
The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2015.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/technology/tools-for-tailored-
    learning-may-expose-students-personal-details.html

"Are School Districts Equipped to De-Identify Student Data?" Government
Technology, Aug. 27, 2015.
    http://www.govtech.com/education/Are-School-Districts-Equipped-to-
    De-Identify-Student-Data.html
    
"FTC has authority to police cybersecurity - US appeals court." The
Weather Space, Aug. 27, 2015.
    http://theweatherspace.com/2015/08/27/122389-ftc-has-authority-to-
    police-cybersecurity-us-appeals-court/
    
"Gmail To Auto-Update Google Calendar Events for Biz Users." News
Factor Network, Aug. 26, 2015.
    http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200C613OO2
    
"'De-Identifying' Student Data Is Key for Protecting Privacy."
Education Week, Aug. 25, 2015.
    http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/08/26/de-identifying-
    student-data-is-key-for-protecting-privacy.html
    
"Court rules Wyndham Hotel Group will have to fight suit over 
failure to protect customer data." Fox News, Aug. 25, 2015.
    http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/08/25/ftc-says-wyndham-
    hotel-group-didnt-do-enough-to-protect-customer-data/
    
"Court Says the FTC Can Slap Companies for Getting Hacked." Wired,
Aug. 24, 2015.
    http://www.wired.com/2015/08/court-says-ftc-can-slap-companies-
    getting-hacked/
    
"Appeals court upholds FTC's authority to enforce data security 
standards." Consumer Affairs, Aug. 24, 2015.
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-ftcs-
    authority-to-enforce-data-security-standards-082415.html
    
"Surveillance Society: Review shows few safeguards against student 
privacy leaks." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 24, 2015.
    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/surveillance-society/2015/08/24/
    Surveillance-Society-Review-shows-few-safeguards-against-student-
    privacy-leaks/stories/201508240003
    
"Surveillance Society: Students easy targets for data miners." 
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 20, 2015.
    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/surveillance-society/2015/08/20/
    Surveillance-Society-Students-easy-targets-for-data-miners/stories/
    201508230018
    
"Betrayal or 'Christmas in September'? Dueling experts assess Ashley 
Madison hack." The Week, Aug. 20, 2015.
    http://theweek.com/speedreads/572862/betrayal-christmas-september-
    dueling-experts-assess-ashley-madison-hack
    
"Busting the Biggest Myth of CISA  That the Program Is Voluntary." 
Wired, Aug. 19, 2015.
    http://www.wired.com/2015/08/access-cisa-myth-of-voluntary-info-
    sharing/
    
"HNTB Announces New Survey: 'Americans Expect Transportation 
Technologies to Improve Travel Safety'." PR Web, Aug. 18, 2015.
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/08/prweb12910339.htm
    
"High Court Urged To Press DHS For Cell-Disabling Plan Info."
Law360, Aug. 17, 2015.
    http://www.law360.com/articles/691792/high-court-urged-to-press-
    dhs-for-cell-disabling-plan-info
    
"DHS Might Get Forced To Divulge Its Secret Plan To Cut Mobile 
Service." iTech Post, Aug. 17, 2015.
    http://www.itechpost.com/articles/15624/20150817/dhs-might-get-
    forced-to-divulge-its-secret-plan-to-cut-mobile-service.htm
    
"Will Supreme Court force DHS to divulge secret plan to cut cell 
service?" Ars Technica, Aug. 15, 2015.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/will-supreme-court-
    force-dhs-to-divulge-secret-plan-to-cut-cell-service/
       

For More EPIC in the News:  http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html

=======================================================================
[8] EPIC Book Review
=======================================================================

"Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans 
and Robots," John Markoff

http://amzn.to/1X3n4eJ

More than thirty years ago, in the midst of growing enthusiasm for the 
field of Artificial Intelligence, MIT Professor Joseph Weizenbaum 
coined the phrase "The Artificial Intelligentsia." It was a pointed 
reference to the views, voiced by some leaders in the tech field, that 
machines could be made as smart as people, that rule-based expert 
systems would replace doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Weizenbaum's 
Eliza program, which mimicked a Jungian therapist ("I am not feeling 
well today" says the user. "Why are you not feeling well today?" 
responds the program), poked holes in the ascendancy of artificial 
intelligence

Weizenbaum was correct, at least in the short term, that the benefits 
of AI had been oversold. IF-THEN routines did not constitute expertise. 
An AI Winter took hold in the 1980s. Many of the early AI companies 
collapsed. Doctors, not machines, continued to prescribe medication. 
And even the creation of a chess program that could defeat the world 
chess champion hardly signaled a new era in machine intelligence.

But over time, the challenges and opportunities of AI did not diminish. 
Today we ask our phones for restaurant directions and medical advice. 
Expert system have made their way into a wide variety of industries. 
And the ethical dilemmas that confront manufacturers of autonomous 
vehicles and electronic caregivers seem all too real. The "trolley 
dilemma"  what to do when an uncontrolled vehicle barrels toward 
innocent bystanders  occupies a central place in many of these 
discussions.

John Markoff, a veteran technology reporter for the New York Times 
with deep roots in Silicon Valley has an almost unique ability to place 
innovation in a social context and extract policy questions from the 
design of a new device. Markoff points to the central paradox of AI 
"Artificial Intelligence and IA "Intelligence Augmentation." In the 
first camp are those who welcome the ability of machines to replace 
people. In the second group are technologists who want invention to 
extend human capability, not replace it. But this taxonomy is less 
division and more dialectic. A system that can augment a human task 
may develop the ability to assume it.

The debate is familiar to labor groups and economists. Almost with the 
rise of industrial capitalism was the central concern that machines in 
replacing people would lead to labor displacement. This has certainly 
transpired. The key concern about the net effect  whether automation 
would decrease total employment  is a question that seemed largely 
settled until a few years ago.

Still, there is a big difference between machines displacing people and 
robots replacing people. And in the last few years, industrial pioneers 
Elon Musk and Bill Gates, along with Stephen Hawking, ethicists, 
scientists and others have warned that an AI that surpasses human 
intelligence could lead to the end of the human race. This is no longer 
about jobs. It is about survival.

Markoff places great weight on enlightened technologists who could 
guide us toward outcomes that safeguard humans. It is a view well 
informed by a long tradition of debate and discussion, led by respected 
figures such as Norbert Weiner, Douglas Englebardt, Terry Winograd, and 
Eric Horwitz.

But this view also tends to downplay the economic and institutional 
forces that may overwhelm the best of intentions. The automation of the 
labor force that took hold after the fiscal collapse of 2008 is one 
example. The military also plays a significant role in driving forward 
the automation process. In fact, the current debate over drones, which 
are simply autonomous flying robots, reveals some of the sharpest 
political choices concerning new technologies in many years.

And then there is the human dimension. A new AMC series, Humans,  
suggests that the Frankenstein myth, the risk that we lose control of  
our inventions, captures only one of the challenges of integrating 
robots in everyday life. There is also the Pinochio scenario. What 
happens when people develop an emotional attachment to their devices? 
Is a skilled electronic caregiver preferable to an imperfect human? 
And if the answer is yes, will we also look to machines for other
human roles?

These questions are still a few years off. Others are not. One of the 
great robotics challenges, fueled by funding from the Department of 
Defense, are autonomous vehicles that can be driven on public roadways. 
It is simultaneously an enormous opportunity for innovation  consider 
all of the safety features in new cars  and a genuinely hard problem. 
What will an autonomous car do when stopped at a red light if a police 
officer is signaling vehicles to move through the intersection? And 
does the problem gain urgency when we recall that hundreds of people 
cross a busy intersection at any moment?

Weizenbaum's warning about the acceptance of AI seems no less relevant 
today than when he wrote Computer Power and Human Reason (1976). And to 
Asimov's Laws for Robots, I would propose a fourth (technically, fifth) 
axiom: "A robot must always reveal to a human being the basis of its 
decision." Call this algorithmic transparency. Call this accountability 
for a solution, good or bad, to the trolley problem. Call it one way in 
the future we may be able to distinguish the devices we create from 
ourselves.

- Marc Rotenberg

===================================
[8] EPIC Book Store
===================================

"Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions," edited by
Marc Rotenberg, Julia Horwitz and Jeramie Scott. The New Press 
(May 2015). Price: $25.95.

http://epic.org/buy-privacy-modern-age

The threats to privacy are well known: The National Security Agency 
tracks our phone calls; Google records where we go online and how we 
set our thermostats; Facebook changes our privacy settings when it 
wishes; Target gets hacked and loses control of our credit card 
information; our medical records are available for sale to strangers; 
our children are fingerprinted and their every test score saved for 
posterity; and small robots patrol our schoolyards while drones may 
soon fill our skies.

The contributors to this anthology don't simply describe these problems 
or warn about the loss of privacythey propose solutions. They look 
closely at business practices, public policy, and technology design 
and ask, "Should this continue? Is there a better approach?" They take 
seriously the dictum of Thomas Edison: "What one creates with his hand, 
he should control with his head." It's a new approach to the privacy 
debate, one that assumes privacy is worth protecting, that there are 
solutions to be found, and that the future is not yet known. This 
volume will be an essential reference for policy makers and 
researchers, journalists and scholars, and others looking for answers 
to one of the biggest challenges of our modern day. The premise is 
clear: There's a problem  let's find a solution.

Contributors include: Steven Aftergood, Ross Anderson, Christine L. 
Borgman (coauthored with Kent Wada and James F. Davis), Ryan Calo, 
Danielle Citron, Simon Davies, A. Michael Froomkin, Deborah Hurley, 
Kristina Irion, Jeff Jonas, Harry Lewis, Anna Lysyanskaya, Gary T. 
Marx, Aleecia M. McDonald, Dr. Pablo G. Molina, Peter G. Neumann, 
Helen Nissenbaum, Frank Pasquale, Dr. Deborah Peel, MD, Stephanie E. 
Perrin, Marc Rotenberg, Pamela Samuelson, Bruce Schneier, and 
Christopher Wolf.

=====================================

"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
=======================================================================

"Improving Federal Statistics for Policy and Social Science Research 
Using Multiple Data Sources and State-of-the-Art Estimation Method."
Speaker:  EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Washington, DC:  National
Academies of Sciences, Sept. 4, 2015. For More Information:
https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49725.

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee Presents "Algorithmic 
Transparency and Privacy." Speaker:  EPIC President Marc Rotenberg.
Sao Paulo, Sept. 16, 2015. For More Information:  http://cgi.br/.

"The Economic and Social Benefits of an Open Internet." Speaker:  EPIC 
President Marc Rotenberg. Washington, DC: OECD Washington Center, Sept.
30, 2015. For More Information:  
http://www.oecd.org/washington/upcomingevents.htm.

"Data Retention: The International Dimension." Speaker:  EPIC President 
Marc Rotenberg. Berlin:  Berlin House of Representatives, Oct. 14, 2015.
For More Information:  http://www.eaid-berlin.de/?page_id=753.

Federal Trade Commission Presents "PrivacyCon." Washington, DC: Jan. 14,
2016. For More Information:  
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon.
 
=======================================================================
Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter
=======================================================================

Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter:

http://facebook.com/epicprivacy

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 (EPIC) is a non-profit, 
independent public interest research center in Washington, DC. EPIC
was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy 
issues. Today EPIC maintains one of the top privacy websites in the 
world. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information 
Act litigation, files amicus briefs on emerging privacy and civil 
liberties issues, and conducts policy research. For more information, 
visit http://www.epic.org.

=======================================================================
Support EPIC
=======================================================================

If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, contributions are welcome and 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 help support Freedom of Information Act litigation, 
strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy, and continued 
public education. 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 22.16-------------------------