EPIC logo

                             E P I C  A l e r t
Volume 11.15                                             August 4, 2004

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


Table of Contents

[1] EPIC Report: Homeland Security Given Census Data on Arab Americans
[2] White House Responds to 9/11 Commission Report
[3] Court Rejects Agency Effort to Withhold CAPPS II Info From EPIC
[4] Agencies Issue Rules on Homeless Tracking; Bank Customer ID
[5] Congress Considers Bills to Strengthen E-Mail Privacy
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: A Little Knowledge
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] EPIC Report: Homeland Security Given Census Data on Arab Americans

EPIC obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act last
week revealing that the Census Bureau gave the Department of Homeland
Security statistical information on people who identified themselves
on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry.  The special tabulations
were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency, and do not
indicate that similar information about any other ethnic groups was
requested.  The tabulations apparently include information about
United States citizens, as well as individuals of Arab descent whose
families have lived in the United States for generations.

One tabulation shows cities with populations of 10,000 or more and
with 1,000 or more people who indicated they are of Arab ancestry. For
each city, the tabulation provides total population, population of
Arab ancestry, and percent of the total population which is of Arab

A second tabulation, more than a thousand pages in length, shows the
number of census responses indicating Arab ancestry in zip codes
throughout the country.  The responses indicating Arab ancestry are
subdivided into Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan,
Palestinian, Syrian, Arab/Arabic, and Other Arab.

The heavily redacted documents show that in April 2004, a Census
Bureau analyst e-mailed a Department of Homeland Security official and
said, "You got a file of Arab ancestry information by ZIP Code
Tabulation Area from me last December (2003).  My superiors are now
asking questions about the usage of that data, given the sensitivity
of different data requests we have received about the Arab

The same day, a Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border
Protection official e-mailed the analyst to explain, "At U.S.
International airports, U.S. Customs posts signage informing various
nationalities of the U.S. Customs regulations to report currency
brought into the US upon entry . . . . My reason for asking for U.S.
demographic data is to aid the Outbound Passenger Program Officer in
identifying which language of signage, based on U.S. ethnic
nationality population, would be best to post at the major
International airports."

During World War II, the Census Bureau provided statistical
information to help the War Department round up more than 120,000
innocent Japanese Americans and confine them to internment camps.

The tabulations were produced using data from the 2000 census
long-form questionnaire, which goes to only a sample of the
population.  The tabulation figures, therefore, do not provide an
entirely accurate representation of the Arab American population.

The documents:


For more information on the census and privacy, see EPIC's Census
Privacy Page:


[2] White House Responds to 9/11 Commission Report

In a White House Rose Garden speech on Monday, President Bush endorsed
two significant recommendations contained in the final report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/11
Commission: the creation of a national intelligence director and the
development of a national counterterrorism center that will operate as
"our government's knowledge bank for information about known and
suspected terrorists."

The final report of the 9/11 Commission calls for a major
restructuring of the U.S. national security framework.  The 9/11
Commission recommends that a newly appointed Cabinet-level national
intelligence director have direct control over the intelligence
community's $40 billion annual budget, real power to coordinate the
efforts of fifteen government agencies, and veto power over the
individuals named to head intelligence agencies.

In contrast, under President Bush's plan, the intelligence director
would not have full control over budget and hiring matters.  White
House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Bush administration would
provide Congress with more information about the proposal in coming
days, including details regarding how much authority over budgetary
and personnel matters the new national intelligence director should
have.  The director would have "significant input" in making budgetary
recommendations to the president, according to Andrew Card, White
House Chief of Staff.  McClellan stated, "The national intelligence
director will have the authority he or she needs to do the job."

The disagreement over the director's power is likely to be symbolic of
the forthcoming public debate over which 9/11 Commission
recommendations Congress should enact.  Both House and Senate leaders
say they want to enact legislation prior to the November presidential
election.  However, some intelligence officials and civil liberties
organizations warn against a Congressional rush to action without
careful deliberation.

It remains unclear the extent to which the critical government
activities of the new counterterrorism center will be subject to
public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.  In addition,
questions remain about how the proposed changes would affect federal
government data mining efforts at the Department of Defense and other
government agencies.  In a report released in May 2004 titled
"Safeguarding Privacy in the Fight Against Terrorism," the bipartisan
Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee, created by Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, expressed privacy concerns over government
data mining efforts.  The report concluded that "rapid action is
necessary to address the host of government programs that involve data
mining concerning U.S. persons."  The report recommended that the
Defense Department "should safeguard the privacy of U.S. persons when
using data mining to fight terrorism."

President Bush's remarks on intelligence reform:


The 9/11 Commission's final report:


EPIC's testimony before the 9/11 Commission:


For more information about the report, see EPIC's 9/11 Commission


[3] Court Rejects Agency Effort to Withhold CAPPS II Info From EPIC

A federal district court has refused to allow the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) to withhold factual information within
deliberative, nonfinal agency documents concerning the Computer
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II).

In August 2003 EPIC requested, among other information, any privacy
impact assessments the agency had performed for CAPPS II.  The
E-Government Act of 2002 requires an agency to perform a privacy
impact assessment before developing or procuring information
technology that collects, maintains or disseminates identifiable

TSA agreed to process the documents, but failed to respond to EPIC's
request for expedited processing.  In September 2003, EPIC applied for
an emergency court order requiring TSA immediately to release the
requested documents.  TSA relented and agreed to process the material
by September 25, 2003, five days before public comments were due on
TSA's proposed Privacy Act notice for CAPPS II.  TSA then refused to
release the documents, claiming that they were exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act because they were not final and
because CAPPS II was "still evolving."  The agency further maintained
that no factual material, which must be disclosed under law, could
possibly be released to EPIC because "facts are necessarily
inextricably intertwined with policy-making processes," and to release
them would "expose the deliberative process."

In a 21-page opinion issued on August 2, 2004, Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly determined that drafts of privacy impact assessments
are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,
but rejected the government's claim that no factual material could be
separated from exempt material.  Noting that the government failed to
satisfy its burden to "specify in detail which portions of the
document are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt," Judge
Kollar-Kotelly concluded that if the agency's "stated rationale,
without further detail or explanation, could be the sole justification
for non-segregability, the segregability requirement . . . would be
gutted. . . .  This Circuit has expressly provided that such
conclusory language is insufficient to justify a finding of

Judge Kollar-Kotelly has ordered the agency to review the documents
again for factual information that can be separated from protected
material, or to explain to the court why it is unable to do so.

The order comes just days after the Department of Homeland Security
admitted that CAPPS II is too flawed to go forward, and the agency is
considering other aviation security options.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision:


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


[4] Agencies Issue Rules on Homeless Tracking; Bank Customer ID

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued final rules
to implement Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS), programs
that track recipients of benefits to assess the number of persons
receiving care, and to improve efficiency of services to the poor.
While well intentioned, the implementation of HMIS can be highly
privacy invasive.

In comments to the agency, eight civil liberties groups joined EPIC in
opposing unnecessarily invasive aspects of HMIS, including provisions
giving law enforcement broad access to data, the collection of the
Social Security Number from the homeless, and a proposal that domestic
violence victims be included in the tracking system.  The groups also
argued that the agency should take a census-style "snapshot" of the
homeless population rather than a constant enumeration of homeless
individuals.  In its final rule, the agency decided to proceed with
collection of the Social Security Number and a full enumeration of the
homeless, including domestic violence victims.  However, the final
rule incorporates tighter controls over law enforcement access and
contains significant new protections for privacy.

Under the final rule, law enforcement access provisions are clearer
and offer more detail to benefits providers.  Additionally, whereas
the proposed rule would allow some government agents to access an
entire HMIS database without a warrant, the final rule limits the
contexts in which and the amount of data that law enforcement can
obtain.  The rule articulates a full set of fair information practices
for protection of HMIS data, including collection limitation, purpose
specification, use limitation, purpose specification, openness, access
and correction, and accountability.  The rule also articulates a
two-tiered approach to security, where benefits providers must comply
with a floor of requirements but may adopt heightened procedures where

In a separate proceeding, federal banking regulators issued a final
rule requiring all banks to create customer identification programs
that must be approved by the banks' board of directors.  Individuals
opening new deposit accounts, trust services, a safe deposit box,
credit accounts, or even an extension of credit must provide their
names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security Numbers under
the new rules.  A bank must verify enough of this information "to form
a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the customer,"
but it need not confirm the accuracy of all the information submitted
by the individual.  Banks may verify using documents, such as
government issued identification cards, or though non-documentary
methods, such as credit reporting agency files or public databases.

Banks must also check new accounts against the Office of Foreign
Assets Control database, which lists known or suspected criminal
organizations.  Banks must retain both identifying information and
information about verifying customers for five years after the account
is closed.

Bank examiners are encouraged to inspect several categories of
suspicious accounts under the rules.  They include accounts where the
customer applied for a new taxpayer identification number and
"high-risk" activities including foreign private banking and trust
accounts, accounts of foreign political officials, offshore accounts
and non-face-to-face accounts.

Basic bank services, such as wire transfers, check cashing, and money
order sales do not trigger customer identification programs.  The
regulations were promulgated under Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

HMIS Final Rule:


EPIC comments on HMIS:


Federal Reserve Customer Identification Program Rules:


[5] Congress Considers Bills to Strengthen E-Mail Privacy

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) has introduced the E-mail Privacy Act of 2004,
H.R. 4956, which would address two weaknesses in the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act that were recently highlighted in a
controversial First Circuit case.  In United States v. Councilman, the
court found that an ISP's real-time, continuous acquisition of
subscriber e-mail did not violate federal wiretap law. The new bill
would fix this misinterpretation of the Wiretap Act as well as close a
long-standing loophole in the law governing stored communications that
allows an Internet Service Provider (or any electronic communication
service provider) to read its subscribers' communications.  A second
bill, the E-mail Privacy Protection Act of 2004, H.R. 4977, has been
introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to address the same issues.

In creating the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Congress
updated existing wiretap law to address electronic communications.
Before, only wire and oral communications were protected from
interception.  The amendments extended protections against
interception to electronic communications, and also sought to
establish legal standards for access to email in the possession of a
service provider.  The changes created two categories of electronic
communications -- those "in transit," which enjoy relatively generous
protection under the first tier of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (the Wiretap Act), and those "in storage," which receive a
lesser degree of legal protection under the second tier of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the Stored Communications Act).
The categories that resulted from the amendments were viewed as
complimentary efforts to protect the privacy of electronic
communications.  The tiering of communications resulted more from the
effort to address specific concerns -- such as extending protections
to electronic communications and creating safeguards for stored
communications -- than to formally categorize the privacy protection
for each type of information.

The Councilman case involved the conduct of Interloc, an online
literary clearinghouse that sought to pair its subscribers -- rare and
used book dealers -- with book buyers.  Brad Councilman, former
executive of the company, directed Interloc employees to write
computer code to intercept and copy all incoming communications from
Amazon.com to the subscriber book dealers, for whom Interloc provided
e-mail service.  According to the indictment, the Interloc systems
administrator wrote a revision to the mail processing code that
intercepted, copied and stored all incoming messages from Amazon.com
before they were delivered to the subscribers.  Councilman was charged
with violating the Wiretap Act.  However, because the messages were in
"temporary storage" while on the Interloc e-mail server -- momentarily
before being made available to subscribers -- the court held that the
messages were not "intercepted" in violation of the Wiretap Act.

The House bills seek to correct the First Circuit's narrow
interpretation of the provision by clarifying the language, thus
reflecting the Congressional intent of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act: the real-time, continuous acquisition of messages while
they are in transit -- even if stored momentarily during the course of
transmission -- should be an "interception" under the Wiretap Act.
H.R. 4956 appears to address the issue more directly than H.R. 4977 by
modifying the definition of "interception."  Without these
modifications, and using the anomalous interpretation of the First
Circuit, law enforcement may be able to gain such real-time,
continuous acquisition of a suspect's e-mail or other electronic
communications without following the strict requirements for a wiretap
court order.

Counterintuitively, Brad Councilman could not be charged under the
second tier of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored
Communications Act.  Both the Wiretap Act and the Stored
Communications Act contain a "service provider exception," allowing
the service provider to monitor subscriber communications under
certain circumstances.  The exception in the Wiretap Act allows the
provider to monitor communications to the extent necessary for the
provision of the service (e.g. ensuring that phone line quality is
sufficient).  However, the Stored Communications Act exception allows
providers -- including ISPs -- to monitor communications without any
such qualification.  This extremely broad exception allowed Councilman
to escape liability under the Stored Communications Act as well.  The
bills seek to close this loophole by modifying the service provider
exception language in the Stored Communications Act to approximate
that of the Wiretap Act.

H.R. 4956, the E-mail Privacy Act of 2004:


H.R. 4977, the E-mail Privacy Protection Act of 2004:


The opinion in United States v. Councilman:


For more information about wiretap law, see EPIC's Wiretap Page:


[6] News in Brief


Privacy International recently held its sixth annual United Kingdom
Big Brother Awards ceremony, honoring the year's most egregious
violators of privacy in the UK.  Privacy International accepted
nominations from the public in five categories: Worst Public Servant,
Most Invasive Company, Most Appalling Project, Most Heinous Government
Organisation, and Lifetime Menace Award.  The nominees were judged by
a panel of lawyers, academics, consultants, journalists and civil
rights activists.  Winners received a golden award in the shape of a
boot stamping on a human head, an image drawn from George Orwell's
novel 1984.  The Lifetime Menace Award went to the United States
Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) because
of its offensive and invasive plan to fingerprint all visitors to the
United States beginning in September 2004.  The unusual nomination of
a United States initiative came as a result of the near-total silence
of both the U.S. and UK governments regarding implementation of this

Privacy International's 2004 UK Big Brother Awards page:


For more information about US-VISIT, see EPIC's US-VISIT Page:



EPIC has joined a coalition of groups filing comments with the Federal
Communications Commission on the allocation of spectrum.  The
comments, drafted by the Media Access Project, support the opening of
the 3650-3700 MHz band to unlicensed spectrum access, but ask the
Commission to address the privacy issues that will be raised by such

The comments were submitted in response to a notice of proposed rule
making, which proposed that every device using this spectrum should
broadcast identification information, including contact information of
the owner or operator of the device.  This requirement would mean that
an individual accessing this spectrum on his laptop would have to
broadcast his name and e-mail address.  The coalition's comments
explain why such identification is both unnecessary and harmful to the
privacy of the spectrum user.

Coalition comments to the Federal Communications Commission:



A coalition of journalistic and civil liberties organizations has
filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of EPIC's suit against
the Department of Justice in a federal appeals court.  EPIC is seeking
reversal of a lower court's refusal to expedite processing of a
Freedom of Information Act request seeking information about the
coordinated lobbying efforts of federal prosecutors to oppose
legislation affecting the controversial USA PATRIOT Act.  EPIC's
appeal concerns questions about what a Freedom of Information Act
requestor must demonstrate in order to receive expedited processing.
The coalition's interest in the appeal stems from the important role
expedited processing plays in disseminating timely governmental
information in cases in which there is an urgency to inform the
public.  A decision by the appeals court will likely have a
substantial impact on the ability of requestors to obtain expedited

Coalition's amicus brief:


For more information about the case, see EPIC's EPIC v. DOJ Page:



Congress is poised to loosen federal regulations protecting
individuals from unsolicited commercial fax messages, known as "junk
faxes."  The House has already passed legislation eliminating a
Federal Communications Commission regulation that would require junk
faxers to obtain written consent before transmitting messages. The
House bill also creates an established business relationship exemption
to the consent requirement, allowing any business to junk fax anyone
who makes any purchase for eternity.  The Senate Commerce Committee
approved identical legislation, but that version of the bill is likely
to be amended to limit the duration of the established business
relationship exemption.

In response to House and Senate staff requests for advice on junk
faxing, EPIC recommended that the Federal Communications Commission
should be empowered to reestablish the written consent requirement
with respect to junk faxers who routinely violate the law.  However,
because of procedural rules invoked in the Senate Commerce Committee,
no amendments to the legislation were considered.

S. 2603, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004:


H.R. 4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004:


[7] EPIC Bookstore: A Little Knowledge

A Little Knowledge: Privacy, Security, and Public Information After
September 11, Peter M. Shane, John Podesta and Richard C. Leone, eds.
(The Century Foundation 2004).


"Drawn from the proceedings of the 'Security, Technology, and Privacy'
conference, A Little Knowledge looks at the different ways public
security and the individual's right to privacy have been placed at
odds after September 11.  Chapters address such specific topics as how
tightening security and limiting communication can harm American
participation in the international scientific community; how
restricting public access to information can result in a nation of
uninformed and unengaged citizens; and how American data security and
privacy practices compare with those of other nations.  Cosponsored by
Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School and the Georgetown
University Law Center.  Featuring John Podesta on 'Governing in
Secret'; Alice P. Gast on restricting the flow of scientific
information; Baruch Fischhoff on disclosing risks; Victor W. Weedn on
government risk communications; George Duncan on optimizing privacy
and utility in the management of online databases; Joel R. Reidenberg
on international approaches to privacy; Sally Katzen on public
information rights; and Peter M. Shane on the new technologies and
democratic empowerment."


EPIC Publications:

"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.

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, as well as 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 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

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.
August 15-19, 2004.  Santa Barbara, CA.  For more information:

Transatlantic In-Security: Information, Privacy, and the Challenge of
Security in US-EU Relations.  The American Consortium on EU Studies.
August 17, 2004.  Washington, DC.  E-mail lharris at american.edu.

Ninth National HIPAA Summit.  September 12-14, 2004.  Baltimore, MD.
For more information: http://www.HIPAASummit.com.

Public Voice Symposium: Privacy in a New Era: Challenges,
Opportunities and Partnerships.  Electronic Privacy Information
Center, European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi), and Privacy
International.  September 13, 2004.  Wroclaw, Poland.  For more

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:

Health Privacy Seminar.  Riley Information Services.  September 17,
2004.  Ottawa, Ontario.  For more information:

Nethead/Bellhead: The FCC Takes on the Internet.  Cardozo Law School
Florsheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy and the Yale Law
School Information Society Project.  September 28, 2004.  New York,
NY.  For more information: http://www.cardozobellhead.net.

The Internet and the Law -- A Global Conversation.  Law & Technology
Program, University of Ottawa.  Ottawa, Ontario.  October 1-2, 2004.
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:

Health Privacy Conference.  Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner of Alberta.  October 4-5, 2004.  Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.  For more information:

Privacy and Identity: The Promise and the Perils of a Technological
Age.  DePaul University Center for Intellectual Property Law and
Information Technology and  School of Computer Science,
Telecommunications and Information Systems.  October 14-15, 2004.
Chicago, IL.  For more information:

2004 Big Brother Awards Switzerland.  October 16, 2004.  Lucerne,
Switzerland.  For more information: http://www.bigbrotherawards.ch.

DRM 2004: The Fourth ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management.
Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on
Security, Audit and Control.  October 25, 2004.  Washington, DC.  For
more info: http://mollie.engr.uconn.edu/DRM2004.

2004 Big Brother Awards Austria.  October 26, 2004.  Vienna, Austria.
For more information: http://www.bigbrotherawards.at.

IAPP Privacy and Data Security Academy & Expo.  International
Association of Privacy Professionals.  October 27-29, 2004. New
Orleans, LA.  For more information:

Privacy and Security: Seeking the Middle Path.  Office of the
Information & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; Centre for Innovation
Law and Policy, University of Toronto; and Center for Applied
Cryptographic Research, University of Waterloo.  Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.  October 28-29, 2004.  For more information:

2004 Big Brother Awards Germany.  October 29, 2004.  Bielefeld,
Germany.  For more information: http://www.bigbrotherawards.de.

CFP2005: Fifteenth Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom and
Privacy.  April 12-15, 2005.  Seattle, WA.  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 11.15 ----------------------