EPIC logo

                            E P I C  A l e r t
Volume 11.09                                               May 13, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] FOIA Doc Shows Massive Disclosure of Passenger Data to FBI
[2] Wiretap Reports Released; Secret Warrants Exceed Standard Warrants
[3] Groups Ask California to Investigate Google's Gmail
[4] EPIC Urges Opt-In Privacy for Wireless Devices
[5] Commission Holds Hearing on E-Voting Technology
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: All The Laws But One
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  F R E E D O M  2 . 0  :  D I S T R I B U T E D  D E M O C R A C Y
                    - Dialogue for a Connected World
           Democracy * Transparency * Privacy * Public Voice
                   May 20-22, 2004 * Washington, DC
                Register today at http://www.epic04.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[1] FOIA Doc Shows Massive Disclosure of Passenger Data to FBI

EPIC has received new information about Northwest Airlines' disclosure
of passenger information to the government through Freedom of
Information Act litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Most significantly, one document revealed
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained one full year's
worth of passenger data from Northwest after 9/11.  The document
reveals that the amount of personal data was so vast that the airline
provided the data to the FBI on 6000 CDs.  In an article based upon
this new information, the New York Times confirmed that the Bureau
acquired passenger data not only from Northwest, but from other U.S.
air carriers, as well.

Other documents turned over by NASA as a result of EPIC's lawsuit
detail the agency's receipt and use of passenger data from Northwest.
The agency also filed a "Vaughn index," which describes other
documents the agency has withheld and states NASA's justification for
not releasing the material.

Additional information released by the agency shows that NASA
researchers informed the Transportation Security Administration that
NASA was using Northwest passenger data to conduct research on
passenger screening systems.  TSA expressed an interest in
"understanding the NASA-NWA relationship."  These e-mail messages
(which have been withheld) "represent an exchange between NASA and TSA
discussing areas of cooperation between the two government agencies on
a new passenger screening system."  The subject line of one e-mail
message specifically references TSA's controversial second-generation
Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II,

Further, after funding for NASA's passenger screening research was
apparently discontinued, agency researchers in February 2003
"speculat[ed] as to whether any other program could use the
[Northwest] data."  One e-mail message "identifies other possible uses
for the NWA data."  An unreleased December 2002 e-mail message was
sent "from the lead researcher discussing the advantages of the NWA
database for future government research."

Internal NASA e-mail mentioning Northwest's disclosure of passenger
information to the FBI:


NASA's Vaughn index of withheld documents:


For more information about Northwest's disclosure of passenger
information, see EPIC's Northwest Data Disclosure Page:


For more information about air travel privacy, see EPIC's Passenger
Profiling Page:


[2] Wiretap Reports Released; Secret Warrants Exceed Standard Warrants

Two annual reports recently released by government agencies show that
secret surveillance activity conducted by the United States has
increased dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts reported that
state and federal courts authorized an all-time high 1,442
interceptions of wire, oral and electronic communications in 2003, an
increase of 6 percent over interceptions authorized in 2002.  The
agency also reported that federal officials requested 578 intercept
applications in 2003, a 16 percent increase over those requested in
2002.  No wiretap applications were denied last year.

Further, the 2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Annual
Report revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
granted 1724 applications for secret surveillance last year, more than
in any previous year and nearly twice the number granted in 2001.  The
report shows that 2003 was the first year in which more secret
surveillance warrants were granted than traditional "law enforcement"
wiretap warrants, which are issued only under a more stringent legal
standard.  The report also reveals that a small number of applications
for secret surveillance were denied in 2003 for the first time.

The government is required by law to issue reports each year on the
use of standard and foreign intelligence authority.  The FISA Annual
Report is infamously brief, typically only a few sentences.

The PATRIOT Act significantly expanded the government's authority to
make use of secret foreign intelligence surveillance, including in
matters where an investigation is related to a law enforcement matter.
The 2003 surveillance reports show that secret surveillance is now the
most common form of surveillance used by the United States government.

2003 Wiretap Report:


2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report:


For more information about traditional law enforcement surveillance,
see EPIC's Wiretap Page:


For more information about secret surveillance, see EPIC's FISA Page:


[3] Groups Ask California to Investigate Google's Gmail

EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the World Privacy Forum called
upon the California Attorney General to investigate Google's Gmail
service for violation of wiretapping laws.  Gmail is a free webmail
service that includes a gigabyte of storage for each subscriber.  In
order to offset the cost of this amount of storage, Gmail displays
contextual marketing to the subscriber that is based on the actual
content of the e-mail communication.  The groups alleged that this
targeting, based on the content of the communication, violates
California's Invasion of Privacy Act, which requires the consent of
all parties to a communication before it can be intercepted.

The letter starts by recounting California's history of protecting
privacy from threats posed by both government and the private sector.
A California appellate court once noted: "That common experience makes
it only too evident that personal privacy is threatened by the
information-gathering capabilities and activities not just of
government, but of private business as well.  If the right of privacy
is to exist as more than a memory or a dream, the power of both public
and private institutions to collect and preserve data about individual
citizens must be subject to constitutional control.  Any expectations
of privacy would indeed be illusory if only the government's
collection and retention of data were restricted."  Additionally, the
letter notes that in passing an amendment to the state's Constitution,
citizens were trying to address "the improper use of information
properly obtained for a specific purpose, for example, the use of it
for another purpose."

The groups argued that Google fails to obtain the consent of all
parties to e-mail communications when the company scans the content
for marketing.  In fact, there is no way that individuals can even
know that directing e-mail to the gmail.com domain would result in the
company extracting content from the messages.

The groups addressed two of Google's arguments in defense of e-mail
scanning.  The company has argued that since a computer analyzes the
content of communication rather than a person, there is no invasion of
privacy.  The groups responded by arguing that it is "nonsensical to
conclude that computer scanning is per se less invasive than human
scanning.  Computers possess nearly unlimited storage, scanning, and
associative capacity, therefore, they are able to perform the same
invasions of privacy as humans, possibly more so, considering how more
efficiently computers are able to process data and perform key word
searches."  Google has also compared its scanning of content for
marketing to spam scanning.  The groups responded that spam scanning
can be considered to be actually necessary for providing e-mail
service, whereas direct marketing based on content has never been
considered necessary or even permissible.

In April, thirty-one privacy and civil liberties groups called upon
Google voluntarily to suspend Gmail.

Group letter to the California Attorney General:


Coalition letter to Google requesting the suspension of Gmail:


[4] EPIC Urges Opt-In Privacy for Wireless Devices

In comments to the Federal Communications Commission, EPIC argued for
strong protections against "mobile service commercial messages"
(MSCMs), or spam that is sent to wireless devices.  The agency is
considering enhanced protections for MSCMs as a result of language in
the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing
Act of 2003, which preempted stronger state spam laws but called upon
the Commission to develop heightened protections against MSCMs.  EPIC
emphasized that opt-in protections are necessary against MSCMs because
wireless phones are considered personal by their users, because
individuals often are charged for the bandwidth or on a per message
basis for receiving wireless spam, and because adoption of wireless
devices could be hampered if they become targets of relentless
commercial interruption.

EPIC argued that under the Commission's authority to regulate
"autodialers," devices that store and dial phone numbers, the agency
could place a flat ban on the sending of MSCMs without first obtaining
the recipient's affirmative consent.  Alternatively, the Commission
could establish opt-in protections against MSCMs since Congress
directed the agency to "provide subscribers to commercial mobile
services the ability to avoid receiving mobile service commercial
messages unless the subscriber has provided express prior
authorization to the sender."

The comments also argued that "affirmative consent" should be
expressed in written form.  Without a writing, senders of wireless
spam will claim that the recipient consented to the MSCM, thereby
requiring the recipient to prove that he didn't consent, which often
is impossible. EPIC also noted that service providers should not be
exempt from the opt-in rules.  Service providers have set up difficult
to use opt-out procedures, and AT&T once even engaged in market
research to determine how to craft notices that recipient would ignore
and thus fail to take action to protect their rights.

EPIC's wireless spam comments:


[5] Commission Holds Hearing on E-Voting Technology

On May 5 the U.S. Election Assistance Commission held its first public
hearing on the use, security, and reliability of electronic voting
systems. The Commission heard from witnesses representing technology,
vendor, election administration, research/human interaction factors,
and advocacy organizations who related their interests and concerns
about the use of electronic voting technology.

During the hearing, Chairman DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., stated that the
Commission would probably not recommend requiring paper receipts when
it makes preliminary recommendations, which may be made public within
the next week.  Further, he said that states would be allowed to set
their priorities pertaining to the use of voting technology in the
election year.  It is estimated that about 20 states are considering
legislation that would require a paper record of each vote cast on
direct recording electronic voting machines, also known as touchscreen
voting machines.

The five participants on the vendors panel represented the largest of
the electronic voting technology companies: Hart Intercivic, Diebold,
Avante, Election Systems & Software, and Sequoia.  Each representative
except Avante's Founder and CEO spoke against the inclusion of paper
ballots with DRE voting technology.  However, most made it clear to
the Commission that they were prepared to add the feature if it became
a requirement.  Although California recently decertified Diebold's
voting technology from use in the November 4, 2004, general election,
Diebold's director of marketing referenced Diebold equipments'
performance in that state's recent elections as an example of how well
the company's technology performs.

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley offered testimony before
the Commission on the election administrator panel in which he stated
concerns regarding the certification process currently in place for
electronic voting technology.  Shelley reported that the State of
California was denied access to status information regarding the
certification of Diebold voting machines and was directed to seek
answers to its questions from the company.  State elections
administration panelists were supportive of current electronic voting
equipment design and opposed the inclusion of printers to produce a
voter verified paper ballot.

The work of the Commission has been greatly curtailed by a lack of
funding.  It received only $1.2 million of the $10 million authorized
for its use in the Help America Vote Act.  On May 12, the Commission
went before Hill appropriators to request funding for the next fiscal
year, scheduled to begin October 1, 2004.  Chairman Soaries, appearing
before the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasure, and Independent Agencies Committee,
requested an extra $10 million for research so that the Commission
could gather necessary data in order to assist the Commission in
formulating recommendations on the administration of public elections.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission:


U.S. Election Assistance Commission Hearing:


National Committee for Voting Integrity:


For more information about electronic voting, see the EPIC Voting


[6] News in Brief


The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, S. 1301, has passed by voice vote
in the House Judiciary Committee.  Termed the "cell-phone camera snoop
ban" in the media, this bill would prohibit image capture by any
means, such as videotaping, photographing, and broadcasting, of
certain parts of an individual's unclothed body without his or her
consent.  Specifically, it would ban the intentional image capture of
an individual's naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area,
buttocks, or female breast under circumstances in which the individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy in such body parts.  Instances
of such a reasonable expectation of privacy involve circumstances in
which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe
in privacy, without being concerned that his or her image was being
videotaped, photographed, filmed, broadcast, or otherwise recorded by
any means; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe
that his or her naked or undergarment-clad pubic area, buttocks,
genitals, or female breast would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area.  The
Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, which was referred to the House
Committee after it passed the Senate in September, will make such an
act a crime punishable by fine or up to a year in prison.

Text of S. 1301:



California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley recently announced that
the state has banned the use of any voting system that does not
provide a paper ballot.  Specifically, California has banned the use
of touchscreen voting systems for use in state elections until
security measures are in place to safeguard the November vote. The
California March 2, 2004 primary election presented a host of problems
to voters and election day workers, resulting in approximately 7,000
voters in Orange County receiving incorrect computer access codes to
cast ballots.  Poll workers unfamiliar with how the district's
electronic voting technology worked made the error that resulted in
voters receiving the wrong ballots to cast their votes.  This
experience closely followed the California Governor's recall election
in October 2003, during which electronic voting machines supplied by
Diebold were reported to have used uncertified changes to software.

California Report "On the Investigation of Diebold Election System,


California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley Press Release:



A Florida court has ruled that the State's Legislature and Governor
Jeb Bush violated the due process and privacy rights of Theresa
Schiavo by intervening to keep the severely brain damaged woman alive.
Schiavo has been in a vegetative state for fourteen years and has
become the center of an intense, emotional fight over end-of-life
decisionmaking.  After a court-appointed doctor determined that
Schiavo had no possibility of recovery, her feeding tube was removed,
sparking the Florida Legislature to pass "Terri's Law," which resulted
in the Governor exercising a new power to intervene in the woman's
case.  Florida Sixth Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird ruled last week
that "By substituting the personal judgment of the governor for that
of the 'patient,' [Terri's Law] deprives every individual who is
subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right
to the privacy of his or her own medical decision.  To preserve the
promise of individual liberty and freedom, the Florida Constitution
guarantees to every citizen the right to be the master of his or her
own personal private medial decisions.  [Terri's Law] authorizes an
unjustifiable state interference with the privacy right of every
individual who falls within its terms without any semblance of due
process protection.  The statute is facially unconstitutional as a
matter of law."

The case highlights the need for awareness of "advance directives" or
living wills that allow individuals to make end of life decisions
privately before an accident or serious illness occurs.  All fifty
states have legislation recognizing the legitimacy of such directives,
and information about them is available from the following sources.

American Bar Association, " Shape Your Health Care Future with Health
Care Advance Directives":


Partnership for Caring:



A study conducted by the Rand Corporation National Defense Research
Institute has concluded that web sites currently censored as homeland
security risks should be reopened.  The censored web sites contain
information about airports, power plants, military bases and other
possible terrorist targets; however, the Institute found this
information is freely available elsewhere and easily obtainable.  The
study identified a total of 629 databases accessible online and found
that the restriction of just four of the databases would benefit
homeland security, less than 1 percent of the total examined.
According to the report, the remaining 559 databases "are probably not
significant for addressing attackers' information needs and do not
warrant any type of public restriction."

Mapping the Risks:  Assessing the Homeland Security Implications of
Publicly Available Geospatial Information:



The Canadian government recently broke the second step of a
three-phase agreement with the Canadian arm of United States-based
corporation Lockheed Martin under which the company would have
provided services for a 2006 national survey and mini-census.  The
government will not be penalized for breaking the final phase of the
contract, which actually involved software for the 2006 national
census. Numerous organizations had lobbied the government to drop the
deal because of concerns about how individuals' private information
could be used by a company closely linked to United States defense
interests.  The director of the 2006 census confirmed that the
contract was terminated due to confidentiality and privacy concerns.

For more information about privacy of census information, see EPIC's
Census Privacy Page:



EPIC recently joined twenty-nine privacy, immigration and civil
liberties organizations urging the Department of Homeland Security to
develop a straightforward redress policy for visitors to the United
States who are adversely affected by the US-VISIT program, which
tracks the entry and exit of visitors to the United States.  In a
letter to the agency noting the program's "enormous potential for
error, invasion of privacy, and violation of international privacy
laws and human rights standards," the coalition called for a redress
procedure allowing for fair review and rapid appeals.  The coalition
also suggested that an independent evaluation of US-VISIT be

Coalition letter on US-VISIT's redress procedure:


For more information about the US-VISIT program, see EPIC's US-VISIT



Privacy International, in association with Liberty, Statewatch,
Stand.org.uk and the Foundation for Information Policy Research, will
host an event on May 19 entitled "Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting
on the Government's Proposed National Identity Card."  Key figures in
the fields of law, politics, security, technology and human rights
will discuss the UK government's proposed identity card, which is
likely to have far-reaching implications for everyone residing in the
UK. The meeting will be held at The Old Theatre, London School of
Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.

Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's Proposed
National Identity Card:


[7] EPIC Bookstore: All The Laws But One

William H. Rehnquist, All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime
(Knopf 1998).


At the beginning of the Civil War, Union troops traveling to
Washington, DC to defend the nation's capital were attacked by angry
mobs in Maryland.  In the midst of these attacks, President Abraham
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, permitting the military
to impose martial law on civilians and try them in military tribunals.
When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney rebuked Lincoln for
this action, the president commented that the Chief Justice's
insistence upon preserving the writ of habeas corpus would allow "all
the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to
pieces, lest that one be violated."  Lincoln, historically considered
a champion of freedom and the rights of the man, subsequently
curtailed many civil liberties for the duration of the conflict.

In All The Laws But One, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court, examines the history of civil liberties
during wartime and discusses situations in which the executive branch
suspended freedoms in the name of national security, sometimes without
the approval of Congress and the courts.  Beginning with Lincoln's
measures during the Civil War, Rehnquist traces the nation's history
of infringement upon civil liberties during times of conflict through
the forced relocation of Japanese Americans to detainment camps during
World War II.

Rehnquist points out the excesses of civil liberties violations during
wartime -- during World War I, for example, editorial cartoonists
critical of the government's actions were prosecuted for sedition. 
But Rehnquist, long deferential to government interests, defends the
curtailment of freedoms in some situations -- including, surprisingly,
some cases of detention of Japanese-Americans in camps during the
second World War.

Rehnquist asserts that "It is neither desirable nor is it remotely
likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime
as it does in peace time."  But, the Chief Justice continues, "it is
both desirable and likely that more careful attention will be paid by
the courts to the basis for the government's claims of necessity as a
basis for curtailing civil liberty.  The laws will thus not be silent
in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice."
Rehnquist's words, written a few years before the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, offer hope that the Supreme Court and other courts may
consider themelves a last defense for freedoms when the country is
under duress, and are prepared to scrutinize heavily any infringement
upon civil liberties.

- Marcia Hofmann


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

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
simpson at american.edu.

Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's Proposed
Identity Card.  Privacy International in association with Liberty,
Statewatch, Stand.org.uk and the Foundation for Information Policy
Research.  May 19, 2004.  London, England.  For more information:

Freedom 2.0: Distributed Democracy.  Dialogue for a Connected World.
Electronic Privacy Information Center.  May 20-22, 2004.  Washington,
DC.  For more information: http://www.epic04.org.

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, WA.  For
more information: http://www2.ctcnet.org/conf/2004/session.asp.

Knowledge Held Hostage? Scholarly Versus Corporate Rights in the
Digital Age.  Annenberg Public Policy Center and Rice University in
association with Public Knowledge and the Center for Public Domain.
June 18, 2004.  Philadelphia, PA.  For more information:

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.

Managing the Privacy Revolution 2004: New Challenges, New Strategies,
New Dangers.  Privacy & American Business.  June 22-24, 2003.
Washington, DC.  E-mail info at pandab.org.

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."

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

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 11.09 ----------------------