EPIC logo

                            E P I C  A l e r t
Volume 11.06                                             March 24, 2004

                             Published by the
               Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
                             Washington, D.C.


Table of Contents

[1] Supreme Court Hears Compelled ID Case
[2] EPIC Testifies on Air Profiling System
[3] DC Council Unveils DC Police's Spying Practices
[4] More States Back Out of MATRIX
[5] EPIC's Open Government Work Recognized With Madison Award
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Ben Franklin's Web Site
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Supreme Court Hears Compelled ID Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 22 in a
case challenging a Nevada law that allows police to arrest an
individual when there are "suspicious circumstances surrounding his
presence" and he refuses to identify himself.  Larry Dudley Hiibel
challenged the constitutionality of the law when he was convicted
under it for refusing to give his name to a police officer.  The
constitutional challenges in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada
assert that the law violates the right against unreasonable search and
seizure based in the Fourth Amendment, and the right against
self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

During oral arguments several Justices challenged the government's
claim that the information was necessary to protect officers.  It
takes time to run the name through the computer, probed one Justice,
does not an officer put herself in more danger by occupying her time
with a name search when the more immediate harm is fear of physical
violence?  The Court has already ruled that a pat-down search is
permitted if the officer has enough suspicion to warrant one.

The general direction of the questioning showed concern about how
successful police officers would be in solving crimes if they had to
rely on volunteered information to aid investigations.  Justice
Scalia, expressing skepticism about Hiibel's claims, suggested that it
is the obligation of every responsible American to tell the government
as much as he or she knows.  He suggested it is disingenuous to
suggest that anyone could believe in the right not to give his or her
name, even if he or she does not know what the name will be used for.
The U.S. Solicitor General's office, participating in the case as a
"friend of the court," claimed that name requests do not "present any
sort of intrusion at all."

EPIC was one of several groups to submit a brief in support of Hiibel.
EPIC's brief focused on the wealth of information in national law
enforcement databases that becomes available to police officers once
they input a person's name.  Other briefs in support of Hiibel focused
on the difficulty of proving one's identity, especially as it affects
the homeless, and the harms of punishing silence.

Hiibel, who was present in the courtroom during the arguments,
complimented the Nevada Public Defender who argued the case on his
behalf and remarked that the questioning was "fair."  Given the
chance, he affirmed, he "would do it all over again," asserting that
everyone has the "right to remain silent."

EPIC's amicus brief filed in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada:


For more information about the case, see EPIC's Hiibel v. Sixth
Judicial Court of Nevada Page:


[2] EPIC Testifies on Air Profiling System

On March 18, EPIC General Counsel David L. Sobel testified on the
status of the controversial second-generation Computer Assisted
Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) before the Aviation
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.  Sobel said there is reason to doubt whether CAPPS II,
currently under development by the Transportation Security
Administration, can ever function in a way that protects privacy and
provides citizens with basic due process rights.  He also cited recent
General Accounting Office findings that serious privacy problems in
the system have not yet been addressed.

Sobel argued that CAPPS II is a "secret, classified system that the
agency will use to conduct background checks on tens of millions of
airline passengers."  He pointed out that citizens have a
constitutional right to travel, and that CAPPS II conditions this
right upon the surrender of privacy and due process rights, so the
program should be closely scrutinized by Congress.

Sobel noted that the Transportation Security Administration has
"strenuously resisted the disclosure of virtually all relevant
information" about CAPPS II, so the public knows little about how the
program would operate.  He asserted that it is impossible to "have an
informed public debate on the implications of CAPPS II" unless the
agency makes more information available.

The most pressing of the passenger profiling system's problems, Sobel
argued, is the fact that it thoroughly contravenes the intent of the
Privacy Act, a federal law meant to guard citizens' personal
information from government intrusion and abuse.  The Transportation
Security Administration has exempted CAPPS II from many vital
provisions of the Privacy Act that protect the rights of citizens. The
Agency has refused to disclose the categories of sources of
information in CAPPS II.  Furthermore, the agency has refused to
afford passengers meaningful access to information about them used by
CAPPS II, or meaningful opportunities to correct inaccurate,
irrelevant, untimely and incomplete information.  Sobel also noted
CAPPS II's exemption from the requirement that a system maintain only
information that is "relevant and necessary" to perform the system's
function, and asserted that TSA's broadly drawn "routine uses" of
CAPPS II data would only heighten the system's privacy problems.

Others testifying on the status of CAPPS II before the Subcommittee
were Admiral David Stone, Acting Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration; Norman J. Rabkin, Managing Director of the
General Accounting Office's Homeland Security and Justice Division;
James C. May, President and CEO of the Air Transport Association;
Kevin Mitchell, Chairman of the Business Travel Coalition; and Paul
Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on the Status of CAPPS II:


Statement of EPIC General Counsel David L. Sobel:


Report of the General Accounting Office:

For more information about CAPPS II, see EPIC's Passenger Profiling


[3] DC Council Unveils DC Police's Spying Practices

The District of Columbia Council's Judiciary Committee has approved a
report recommending legislation to restrict the Metropolitan Police
Department's surveillance of political organizations and preemptive
arrests of protesters.

The committee's report found that the Department repeatedly violated
its own rules for handling demonstrations, including guidelines on use
of force in defensive situations, de-escalation in crowd control, and
predicates required for mass arrests.  The report also stated that the
DC Police took preemptive actions against demonstrators, including
preemptive arrests.  The nine-month investigation further determined
that the DC Police used undercover officers to infiltrate political
groups in the absence of criminal activity and without any policy
guidelines to protect the constitutional rights to privacy, free
speech and assembly of those individuals being monitored.

Additionally, the DC Police failed to discipline officers for
misconduct, including a plain-clothes detective who chased onlookers
with pepper spray during a 2001 demonstration and was exonerated of
wrongdoing by both the DC Police and the U.S. Attorney's office.  It
also found that Police Chief Charles Ramsey misrepresented his own
role in September 2002 mass arrests at Pershing Park, an area close to
the White House.

The Committee's report recommends legislation setting out clear
guidelines for the DC Police with regard to mass demonstrations and
police surveillance and infiltration of political organizations.

The DC Council's Report on Investigation of the Metropolitan Police
Department's Policy and Practice in Handling Demonstrations in the
District of Columbia:


For more information about surveillance initiatives, see EPIC's Video
Surveillance Page:


For more information about protester surveillance, see EPIC's
Protester Privacy Page:


EPIC's Observing Surveillance Web Site:


[4] More States Back Out of MATRIX

New York and Wisconsin have left the Multi-state Anti-Terrorism
Information Exchange (MATRIX) program.  MATRIX is a prototype database
system run by the State of Florida and Seisint, a private company. 
Built by a consortium of state law enforcement agencies, MATRIX
combines public records and private record data from multiple
databases with data analysis tools.  MATRIX is available to law
enforcement agents in participating states, and provides a wealth of
personal information in near-real time.  New York and Wisconsin join
several other states that have left the program citing state privacy
laws and other privacy concerns, cost, and lack of effectiveness.

Wisconsin's departure comes just one month after the state officially
entered the MATRIX program, and only days after the state's entrance
into MATRIX was publicly reported.  Wisconsin ceased participation in
the database system due to privacy concerns, potential for abuse, and
the departure of other states from MATRIX.  New York was one of the
original states participating in MATRIX, but left because of the cost
of the program and diminished effectiveness of the system as other
states removed their data from MATRIX.

The departures of New York and Wisconsin leave only five of the
original thirteen states in the MATRIX pilot project within the
program.  Two of those states, Connecticut and Michigan, are publicly
considering leaving the database program.  State legislators in
Connecticut are currently holding hearings to debate whether to stay
in the MATRIX program, and Michigan is reevaluating the state's
involvement in MATRIX in light of the departure of so many other

One of the states that has left MATRIX, Utah, is currently
investigating the state's involvement in MATRIX under former Governor
Mike Leavitt.  Utah quickly left the MATRIX project in late January
after state government officials discovered the state's participation
in the project.  Neither current Olene Governor Walker nor the Utah
Legislature had been briefed on Utah's involvement with the program.

EPIC's amicus brief before the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada
describing MATRIX:


MATRIX program webpage:


[5] EPIC's Open Government Work Recognized With Madison Award

EPIC General Counsel David L. Sobel was awarded the prestigious James
Madison Award by the American Library Association on March 16.  The
Madison Award is presented each year on Freedom of Information Day to
recognize individuals or groups that have championed access to
government information and the public's right to know.  Sobel is the
first Freedom of Information Act litigator to receive the award.

Over the last decade, Sobel has led EPIC's efforts to obtain
information about the FBI's wiretapping program known as Carnivore,
the encryption standard called Clipper, and the CAPPS II passenger
screening initiative.  Many of the documents obtained by EPIC have
been cited in national news reports and discussed at Congressional
hearings. Currently, EPIC has a range of FOIA requests pending
concerning the impact of government surveillance post 9-11.  These
focus on aviation security, data mining and implementation of the USA

The award honored Sobel's aggressive pursuit of Freedom of Information
matters in court.  In a recent case against the Department of Defense,
for instance, EPIC sought information about John Poindexter's proposed
Total Information Awareness program.  Not only did the government
refuse to disclose the records EPIC requested, but it also attacked
EPIC's status as a "news media" user of the Freedom of Information
Act.  Sobel took the case to federal court and won a judgment that not
only preserved EPIC's own status as a "news media" requester, but also
the right of all similar organizations in the United States to make
effective use of the Freedom of Information Act.

In related news, EPIC launched its Freedom of Information Act Gallery
2004 in recognition of Freedom of Information Day.  The Gallery
includes some of the most significant records obtained in the past
year by EPIC through the FOIA, including documents showing that
Northwest Airlines handed over millions of passenger records to NASA;
U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay used the
Federal Aviation Administration to track Texas state legislators; the
Department of Justice resisted disclosing basic, statistical
information about its use of USA PATRIOT Act powers; and consumer
complaints about credit reporting agencies increased dramatically in
recent years.

American Library Association Page on Freedom of Information Day and
the Madison Awards:


EPIC's Freedom of Information Act Gallery 2004:


[6] News in Brief


A federal district court judge has ordered New York-Presbyterian
Hospital to turn over to the Justice Department records on abortions
performed there.  The judge ruled that the records are not protected
under federal medical privacy law and that the threat to patient
privacy is minimal because the records at issue will have names and
other identifying information removed.

The decision highlights the disagreement among federal courts about
the privacy rights of patients.  Judges in San Francisco and Chicago
have ruled that the release of abortion records would violate women's
privacy without providing much useful information to the government.
As a result of the San Francisco judge's decision, the Justice
Department dropped its efforts to obtain records from Planned
Parenthood clinics.  Further, a judge in Detroit ruled that records
held by the University of Michigan Health System should be given to
him for determination of relevance and possible release.

The Justice Department is seeking abortion records as part of its
defense in a law suit that challenges the constitutionality of the
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Three simultaneous trials on the
constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act are scheduled
for March 29 in San Francisco, New York and Omaha, Nebraska.

For additional information about the Justice Department's efforts to
obtain medical records, see EPIC's Medical Privacy Page:



The Federal Communications Commission will issue a rulemaking on a
joint petition from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency seeking to extend
Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act requirements to
packet-based data networks.  CALEA requires that telecommunications
providers ensure that their networks comply with FBI-mandated
standards for easy law enforcement surveillance and wiretapping.  The
petition seeks CALEA requirements for emerging Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services that allow voice communications over the
Internet.  Extending CALEA to cover VoIP services would require VoIP
providers and high speed Internet Service Providers to comply with law
enforcement standards for interception and surveillance capabilities.
Under the petition, underlying high speed packet-based data networks,
such as cable modem providers and DSL providers, would be required to
comply with CALEA.  Under the current FCC understanding, CALEA applies
only to circuit-based telephone networks, but not packet-based
networks that are used for the Internet.  The agency is seeking
comments on the extension of CALEA to packet-based networks, which are
due April 13, 2004.

FBI/DOJ/DEA Petition to FCC:


The text of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act:




For more information about wiretapping and CALEA, see EPIC's
Wiretapping Page:



Robert Bulmash of Private Citizen has called upon all Americans to
celebrate April as "Cut Junk Mail Month."  Individuals are encouraged
to collect all of the junk mail during the month of April, to write
"refused" on each piece, and to return the offending missives to a
local Post Office branch on May 1, 2004.  Postal Service regulations
require the agency to accept the refused mail and either return it to
the sender or discard it.

As the Postal Service experiences budgetary difficulties, junk mailers
receive substantial discounts postage than normal users of the
service.  The Postal Service encourages the transmission of junk mail,
and includes a guide on its site on how to "Turn Customer Data into
Profitable Information."  Private Citizen's Cut Junk Mail Month also
highlights the need to supplement recent spam and telemarketing
regulations with a do-not-mail list that would allow individuals to
opt-out of unwanted direct mail.

Private Citizen's Cut Junk Mail Month:



Argentina is organizing its first national census of private databases
to comply with its recent Law for the Protection of Personal Data.
Every holder of private databases containing individuals' personal
data that are being disclosed to third parties must complete a
registration form by April 30, 2004 indicating, among other things,
which information they process, the purpose of processing, and how the
data was obtained.  A recent ruling (February 2003) will also prohibit
after August 2004 any transfer of personal data to third parties
without the individual's written consent.  The ruling will cover data
transfers between Argentina and U.S.-based American companies. 
Experts believe that this census will give consumers better means with
which to enforce the privacy rights the data protection law provides

Law for the Protection of Personal Data (No. 25,326), Oct. 4, 2000
(English unofficial translation):


Ruling 2/2003, Nov. 11, 2003 (Spanish):

Ruling 1/2004, Feb. 2, 2003 (Spanish):

Argentina country report, Privacy and Human Rights 2003:



The Judicial Conference of the United States has issued guidance
permitting remote electronic access to federal court criminal case
files.  The guidance requires filers of documents to redact Social
Security Numbers, account numbers, names of minor children, dates of
birth, and home addresses.  If these identifiers must be included in
the document, the filer should list only partial information, such as
the last four digits of the Social Security Number or the initials of
minor children.  The policy further states that certain documents
should never be made public in paper or in electronic form.  These
include pre-sentence investigation reports, juvenile records, juror
identification information, and unexecuted summonses or warrants.

Guidance for Implementation of the Judicial Conference Policy on
Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Criminal Case Files:


Model Local Rule Regarding Privacy and Public Access to Electronic
Criminal Case Files:


For more information about public record data, see EPIC's Public
Records Page:



Rights & Democracy has announced that it is accepting nominations for
this year's John Humphrey Freedom Award, which is presented each year
to an organization or person who has made an outstanding contribution
to the promotion of human rights and democratic development.  The
Award is named in honor of John Peters Humphrey, an internationally
renowned human rights lawyer who prepared the first draft of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The award includes a $25,000
CDN prize and a speaking tour of Canadian cities to raise public
awareness of the recipient's work on behalf of human rights.  The
deadline for nominations is April 30, 2004.

For more information about the 2004 John Humphrey Freedom Award, see
the Rights & Democracy website:


[7] EPIC Bookstore: Ben Franklin's Web Site

Ben Franklin's Web Site: Privacy and Curiosity from Plymouth Rock to
the Internet, by Robert Ellis Smith (March 2004).


"Privacy Journal has updated and reprinted its acclaimed account of
privacy in American history, Ben Franklin's Web Site, by Privacy
Journal Publisher Robert Ellis Smith.

Privacy Journal launched the second printing because several
university courses now use the book as a text. 'We published it this
time as a trade paperback and as an e-book,' said Smith.

The new book explores hidden niches of American history to discover
the tug between Americans' yearning for privacy and their insatiable
curiosity. 'It is a delightful read for everyone in business,
government, the legal professions, and academia who want historical
insights -- and great quotations,' according to the preeminent privacy
expert Alan F. Westin.  The Wall Street Journal said of Smith's book,
'This is the most practical of these books, with its mix of readable
history and sensible advice on what do about your own privacy.'"

-- From Privacy Journal


EPIC Publications:

"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, International
Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2003/

The "Physicians Desk Reference of the privacy world."  An invaluable
resource for students, attorneys, researchers and journalists who need
an up-to-date collection of U.S. and International privacy law, as
well as a comprehensive listing of privacy resources.

"FOIA 2002: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Mark Zaid, editors (EPIC 2002). Price: $40.

This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of the
Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the
Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  The 21st
edition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalists and
researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.  For those who
litigate open government cases (or need to learn how to litigate
them), this is an essential reference manual.

"Privacy & Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2002). Price: $35.

This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state of
privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world.  The survey
examines a wide range of privacy issues including data protection,
passenger profiling, genetic databases, video surveillance, ID systems
and freedom of information laws.

"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content
Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.

A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content
filtering.  These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering
threatens free expression.

"The Consumer Law Sourcebook 2000: Electronic Commerce and the Global
Economy," Sarah Andrews, editor (EPIC 2000). Price: $40.

The Consumer Law Sourcebook provides a basic set of materials for
consumers, policy makers, practitioners and researchers who are
interested in the emerging field of electronic commerce.  The focus is
on framework legislation that articulates basic rights for consumers
and the basic responsibilities for businesses in the online economy.

"Cryptography and Liberty 2000: An International Survey of Encryption
Policy," Wayne Madsen and David Banisar, authors (EPIC 2000). Price:
$20.  http://www.epic.org/bookstore/crypto00&/

EPIC's third survey of encryption policies around the world.  The
results indicate that the efforts to reduce export controls on strong
encryption products have largely succeeded, although several
governments are gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats of
encryption to law enforcement.

EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free
expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at:

     EPIC Bookstore

     "EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books

[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

Internet Commons Congress.  Inflexion Communications and New Yorkers
for Fair Use.  March 24-25, 2004.  Washington, DC.  For more
information: http://www.internationalunity.org.

Book Party: Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to
Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity.  Book Signings by Lawrence
Lessig.  Interactive Applications Group.  March 25, 2004.  Washington,
DC.  Email mihnat@publicknowledge.org.

Workshop: From RFID to Smart Dust: the Expanding Market for Wireless
Sensor Technologies.  Department of Commerce National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.  April 1, 2004.
Washington, DC.  Email wlader@ntia.doc.gov.

FRAMED!! How Law Constructs and Constrains Culture.  The Center for
the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School.  April 2, 2004.
Durham, NC.  For more information:

Debate on Domestic Spying with EPIC's Marc Rotenberg and Former Deputy
Attorney General Victoria Toensing.  Justice Talking.  April 12, 2004.
For more information: http://www.justicetalking.org.

Workshop: Monitoring Software on Your PC: Spyware, Adware, and Other
Software.  Federal Trade Commission.  April 19, 2004.  Washington, DC.
For more information: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/spyware.htm.

CFP2004: 14th Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).  April 20-23, 2004.
Berkeley, CA.  For more information: http://www.cfp2004.org.

29th Annual AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy.
American Association for the Advancement of Science.  April 22-23,
2004. Washington, DC.  For more information:

2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.  IEEE Computer Society
Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, in cooperation with the
International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR).  May 9-12,
2004. Oakland, CA.  For more information:

International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in a Global
Society.  Wessex Institute.  May 11-13, 2004.  Skiathos, Greece.  For
more information:

Global ICT Summit 2004: From Adversity to Success? The World's Best
e-Content & e-Creativity Experience.  World Summit Award, Global
Alliance for Bridging the Digital Divide, World Wide Web Consortium
Hong Kong, Internet Professionals Association, Hong Kong Cyberport,
and Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce.  May 11-14, 2004.  Hong
Kong.  For more information:

Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security.
University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center.  May 13-14, 2004.
Minneapolis, MN.  For more information:

Critical Infrastructure Information: Conference on the Issues.
American University.  May 14-16, 2004.  Washington, DC.  Email

Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies.  University of Toronto.
May 26-28, 2004. Toronto, Canada.  For more information:

RSA Conference 2004.  RSA Security.  May 31-June 1, 2004.  Tokyo,
Japan.  For more information:

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law:  New Developments & Compliance
Issues in a Security-Conscious World.  Practising Law Institute.  June
7-8, 2004.  San Francisco, CA.  For more information:

TRUSTe Symposium: Privacy Futures.  June 9-11, 2004. International
Association of Privacy Professionals.  San Francisco, CA.  For more
information: http://www.privacyfutures.org.

Access & Privacy Conference 2004: Sorting It Out.  Government Studies,
Faculty of Extension.  June 10-11, 2004.  University of Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.  For more information:

13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: The
Power of People & Technology.  June 11-13, 2004.  Seattle, Washington.
For more information: http://www2.ctcnet.org/conf/2004/session.asp.

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law:  New Developments & Compliance
Issues in a Security-Conscious World.  Practising Law Institute.  June
21-22, 2004.  New York, NY.  For more information: http://www.pli.edu.

PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, and
Content-Distribution Systems.  PORTIA Project.  July 8-9, 2004.
Stanford, CA.  For more information:

O'Reilly Open Source Convention.  July 26-30, 2004.  Portland, OR. For
more information: http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon.

First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam.  American Association for
Artificial Intelligence and IEEE Technical Committee on Security and
Privacy.  July 30-31, 2004.  Mountain View, CA.  For more information:

Crypto 2004: The Twenty-Fourth Annual IACR Crypto Conference.
International Association for Cryptologic Research, IEEE Computer
Society Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the Computer
Science Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara, CA. August 15-19, 2004.  For more information:

The Right to Personal Data Protection -- the Right to Dignity.  26th
International Conference on Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.
September 14-16, 2004.  Wroclaw, Poland.  For more information:

2004 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.  National Center
for Technology & Law, George Mason University School of Law.  October
1-3, 2004.  Arlington, VA.  For more information:

Subscription Information

Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:


Back issues are available at:


The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.

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".  Please contact info@epic.org if you would
like to change your subscription e-mail address, if you are
experiencing subscription/unsubscription problems, or if you have any
other questions.

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,
e-mail info@epic.org, 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).

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:


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.

---------------------- END EPIC Alert 11.06 ----------------------