EPIC logo

                             E P I C  A l e r t
Volume 11.19                                            October 8, 2004

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


Table of Contents

[1] Coalition Asks Congress to Deliberate 9-11 Comm. Recommendations
[2] EPIC Urges Congress to Protect Social Security Numbers
[3] Appeals Court Votes to Revisit E-Mail Interception Case
[4] Business "Free Speech" Claims Fail to Block Do-Not-Call Registry
[5] California Enacts New, Innovative Privacy Protections
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Losing America
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Coalition Asks Congress to Deliberate 9-11 Comm. Recommendations

The In Defense of Freedom Coalition sent a letter with over 40 signers
to members of Congress outlining key points that should be considered
as the House and Senate drafts legislation based on the 9-11
Commission recommendations.   The letter defined specific areas of
concern and made recommendations on how the goals of security and
freedom can both be attained.

Following the issuance of the 9-11 Commission's report, Congress is
acting quickly to address the commission's recommendations, but the
letter warned that there may be unintended negative consequences for
privacy and civil liberties if precautions are not taken.  Congress
should be mindful of the known failure of current information sharing
schemes to secure this nation against terrorist attacks, which have
been deployed at the cost of civil rights and civil liberties.

The letter also urged Congress to review how the changes proposed by
the Commission may impact First Amendment freedoms, and to create
appropriate checks to balance the application of new police powers.
The letter made specific recommendations in six areas: oversight,
identification requirements, accountability, transparency, and the
need for internal checks of power.  The coalition advocated that the
creation of new government authority without the counterbalance of
accountability is inconsistent with the American form of government.
Congress should, in advance of establishing any National Intelligence
Authority or similar entity, enact criminal and civil statutory
disincentives to discourage abuse and misuse of information resources,
and to protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The
implementation of such a system must include structural checks and
balances to preserve constitutional safeguards.

The letter also encouraged Congress to hold more hearings on these
issues and to solicit input from the many organizations who have
worked to safeguard political rights so that these and other concerns
can be thoroughly explored as Congress considers the 9-11 Commission's

The coalition letter is available at:


In Defense of Freedom:


For more information about the 9-11 Commission recommendations, see
EPIC's 9-11 Commission Report Page:


[2] EPIC Urges Congress to Protect Social Security Numbers

In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection, EPIC associate director Chris Hoofnagle urged
Members to support legislation regulating the collection, use, and
disclosure of individuals' Social Security Numbers (SSNs).  The
hearing concerned an amended version of H.R. 2971, the Social Security
Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2003.  The bill
was introduced by House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security
Chairman Clay Shaw (R-FL), but was referred to the Commerce Committee
because it contains provisions affecting commercial use of the SSN and
because it empowers the Federal Trade Commission to address "coercive
disclosure," the practice requiring consumers to give up their SSNs
for access to a product or service.

H.R. 2971 is not likely to be enacted in this Congress, as the main
legislative session comes to a close this week.  However, the bill is
likely to serve as a model for SSN legislation in the 109th Congress,
which will convene in January 2005.  The amended version of the bill
contains many recommendations made by EPIC in earlier testimony (see
EPIC Alert 11.12).

At the hearing, EPIC continued to recommend that the legislation
sharply reduce government and commercial sector reliance on the SSN
and that exceptions be narrowly drawn and time-limited so that they
eventually expire.  The bill still contains problematic exemptions,
including one that gives credit reporting agencies wholesale access to
SSNs in government files.  Another exemption allows use of the SSN for
"public health purposes."  EPIC will continue to track this
legislation as Congress revisits the issue in 2005.

EPIC's SSN testimony:


For more information about SSN privacy, see the EPIC SSN Page:


[3] Appeals Court Votes to Revisit E-Mail Interception Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has voted to rehear
its recent decision that that a company did not violate federal
wiretap law when it accessed its customers' e-mail to view messages
sent to them by a rival company.  The court will review a panel's 2-1
ruling in July that an electronic communication is not "intercepted"
if the communication is accessed while it is in temporary storage.

This case involved an online literary clearinghouse that paired rare
and used book dealers with book buyers.  At the direction of Bradford
Councilman, a high level officer of the company, a clearinghouse
employee wrote a revision to the mail processing code to intercept,
copy, and store all incoming messages from Amazon.com before they were
delivered to and read by the intended recipients. Councilman and other
clearinghouse employees accessed thousands of e-mails this way to gain
a commercial advantage.

The law at issue in this case involves the 1986 amendments to federal
wiretap law.  Prior to the amendments, only wire and oral
communications were protected from interception under the Wiretap Act.
The amendments extended protections against interception to electronic
communications, and also sought to establish legal standards for
access to e-mail 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 law,
and those "in storage," which receive a lesser degree of legal
protection.  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.

In July, however, the First Circuit panel determined that the plain
language of the law showed that Congress did not intend for the
wiretap law's interception provisions to apply to electronic
communications in electronic storage.  The court found that when the
clearinghouse obtained the e-mails, the messages were in temporary
storage in a computer system.  The panel noted that the parties had
stipulated that the e-mails were not affected while they were
transmitted through wires or cables between computers.  In light of
these findings, the panel determined that the e-mails were not in
transit and subject to interception, but were instead stored
communications.  Because no "intercept" occurred, the panel held that
the Wiretap Act could not have been violated.

EPIC joined three other civil liberties groups to file an amicus brief
last month encouraging the First Circuit to review the controversial
ruling.  The brief, filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology
and joined also by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American
Library Association, argued that the panel's decision failed to
recognize the intent of Congress to protect the privacy of electronic
communications, and creates serious constitutional questions under the
Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

The decision of the three-judge panel in United States v. Councilman:


The amicus brief filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology,
EPIC, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and American Library


The order for rehearing en banc:


For more information about electronic surveillance, see EPIC's
Wiretapping Page:


[4] Business "Free Speech" Claims Fail to Block Do-Not-Call Registry

The Supreme Court refused to review a case bought by telemarketers who
sought to invalidate the Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry.  The
Registry allows individuals to opt out of most telemarketing by making
a call to 1-888-382-1222 or by visiting a government-run web site.

In denying the telemarketers' petition for review, the Supreme Court
let stand a lower court's opinion that the Registry is a
constitutional and valid action of the Federal Trade Commission (see
EPIC Alert 11.04).  While the Supreme Court's action is not a ruling
on the merits of the telemarketers' argument, it practically means
that the Registry will operate without interference for the
foreseeable future.

The telemarketers deliberately brought their suit in a jurisdiction
with favorable case precedent.  They targeted the Tenth Circuit, as
that jurisdiction decided U.S. West v. Federal Communications
Commission, a case where the Court of Appeals previously held that
requiring phone companies to obtain consent from consumers before
selling their phone records violated the First Amendment (see EPIC
Alert 6.13).  The Court was dismissive of the privacy interests
asserted, and found that the government did not adequately demonstrate
how privacy would be harmed by exploitation of individuals' calling
records.  In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Briscoe argued that the
opt-in regulation did not affect expressive activity, and that the
challenge represented a "run-of-mill attack on an agency order
'clothed by ingenious argument in the garb' of First Amendment

The 1999 decision in U.S. West v. FCC gave industry groups hope that
they could be free of the burdens of consumer protection and privacy
by claiming that government regulations violated free speech rights.
But since that decision, federal and state courts have adopted the
dissenting reasoning of Judge Briscoe more often than not.  In fact,
the Tenth Circuit itself may be distancing itself from the U.S. West
opinion, as it did not even cite that case when it upheld the
Do-Not-Call Registry regulations.

Since 1999, the Supreme Court has declined to review a number of cases
where privacy laws survived commercial free speech challenges.  In
2001 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Fair Credit
Reporting Act against a First Amendment challenge.  That case, Trans
Union v. FTC, stands strongly for the proposition that Congress can
specify opt-in as the standard for protecting individuals' privacy,
even if it results in fewer commercial solicitations.  In a separate
case involving the same parties, the D.C. Circuit rejected a First
Amendment challenge to the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
prohibiting secondary use of Social Security numbers.  The Supreme
Court declined to review both cases.

Several courts have upheld the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a
law that requires opt-in consent before unsolicited fax or recorded
message solicitations can be sent.  The TCPA was upheld against two
First Amendment challenges in 1995 in the Ninth Circuit and one in
2003 in the Eighth Circuit.  The Supreme Court declined to review all
three cases.

In 2002, the Second Circuit upheld a New York state "anti-
blockbusting" law against a First Amendment challenge.  In that case,
real estate agents challenged a law allowing individuals to opt out of
solicitations that attempted to churn the housing market by stoking
fears of racial or ethnic influx.  The Supreme Court declined to
review that case as well.

For more information about the Do-Not-Call Registry, see EPIC's
Do-Not-Call Registry Timeline:


Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry:


[5] California Enacts New, Innovative Privacy Protections

The 2003-2004 California legislative sessions were marked by the
passage of several significant privacy laws.  California continues to
be the leading state in developing new protections for privacy.  The
protections tend to be strong, giving individuals substantive rights
to limit exploitation of personal information.  Unlike laws recently
passed by the U.S. Congress, California's privacy laws usually allow
individuals to take wrongdoers to court.

Perhaps the most significant privacy protections were created by SB 1,
the California Financial Information Privacy Act (see EPIC Alert
10.17).  SB1 is the strongest financial privacy law in the country,
giving individuals the ability to limit disclosure of personal
information even among companies that have common ownership.  The
banking industry, despite agreeing that the law was a good compromise,
sought to preempt SB 1 through amendments to federal law and through a
lawsuit challenging SB 1's provisions under the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.  EPIC, joined by a coalition of consumer and civil
liberties groups representing 41 million individuals, filed a brief in
the case arguing that SB 1 is not preempted by federal law (see EPIC
Alert 11.17).

California is taking strong steps against "list brokerage," the
compilation of personal information from business transactions,
warranty cards, or sweepstakes entries for resale to telemarketers,
spammers, and junk mailers.  Under SB 27, starting January 1, 2005,
individuals will be able to ask California businesses whether they
sell personal information to direct marketers.  Upon receiving a
request, the business must disclose the names and addresses of the
recipients of personal information and the types of information
disclosed within thirty days.  SB 1633 requires notice and opt-in
consent before businesses seek medical information from individuals
that will be used for direct marketing purposes.

AB 1950 requires businesses with data on California residents to
implement reasonable security practices to protect personal
information.  The bill also requires businesses to ensure that
information is secured when transferred to nonaffiliated third

Under federal law and Federal Trade Commission case precedent, there
is no requirement that web sites have privacy policies.  Instead, web
site operators are only bound by privacy policies if they choose to
post one.  Now, under California's AB 68, operators of commercial web
sites that collect personal information from the State's residents
must post a privacy policy and abide by it.

Under SB 1457, Californians can now sue spammers for damages when they
send unsolicited commercial e-mail that is false or misleading.  SB
1457 is a follow-up measure to an earlier California spam bill that
prohibited spam unless affirmative consent had been obtained from the
recipient.  Congress largely preempted that legislation through
passage of the CAN-SPAM Act.

More information on the California privacy landscape is available from
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse:


Official California legislative Information:


[6] News in Brief


On September 30, the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program began screening travelers
entering and leaving the United States through the Visa Waiver
Program.  The expansion will affect an estimated 13 million citizens
from 27 nations -- including Japan, Australia, and many European
countries -- who until now have been permitted to visit the United
States for up to 90 days without a visa.  As a result of the change,
the U.S. government will collect biometrics from about 33,000 more
travelers every day.  The Japanese Foreign Ministry said that it
intends to insist that the U.S. government delete fingerprints and
photos of Visa Waiver visitors once they have left the country, as
well as create a system to disclose how the government is using
visitors' personal information.

In related news, Privacy International has released a report on
US-VISIT, urging that the increased surveillance at U.S. borders
created by the program poses significant challenges to civil

Privacy International report on US-VISIT:


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



A New York district court on September 29 struck down a provision of
the USA PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth
Amendments.  The provision requires Internet Service Providers and
other businesses, upon request by the FBI, to surrender information
about their customers, and then bars them from revealing that the
disclosure ever took place.  The FBI requests such information with a
national security letter, which does not require judicial approval or

The current version of this provision is an expansion of a 1986 law
that allowed the FBI to use national security letters to seek evidence
against "foreign powers or agents of foreign powers."  The Patriot Act
loosened this standard by simply requiring the information that the
FBI seeks to be "relevant" to terrorism or intelligence gathering. The
court ruled that the provision violates free speech rights under the
First Amendment due to its permanent ban on disclosure, and violates
limitations on search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment because
it restricts judicial challenge to government searches.

This is the second time a court has found a provision of the USA
PATRIOT Act unconstitutional.  In January, a federal court in
California struck down a section making it illegal to give "expert
advice or assistance" to groups that the government has designated
"foreign terrorist organizations" as unconstitutionally vague under
the First and Fifth Amendments.

Court opinion finding national secruity letter provision of the USA


Documents about national security letters obtained by EPIC under the
Freedom of Information Act:


For more information about the national security letters, see EPIC's



The Council of Europe is actively urging countries to sign in to law
the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. The Convention was
signed in 2001 by 30 countries, but has since been ratified by only
eight.  Governments are wary of potentially being required to make
data on their citizens available to other governments.  The Council of
Europe recently participated in the United Nations Consultation on the
Working Group on Internet Governance, suggesting the Convention on
Cybercrime is a model law that other countries should adopt
nationally.  The Council also held a high-level conference in
Strasbourg to encourage ratification of the Convention.  While
interested in preventing cybercrime, governments are rightly concerned
with many provisions of this Convention.  The Information Technology
Association of America is pressing the U.S. Senate for its
ratification, as is President Bush. While it is widely agreed that an
international approach to combating cybercrime is necessary, this
Convention may force U.S. companies and law enforcement to investigate
Americans for acts which are not illegal in this country -- a
significant provision of the agreement, but one which is
unconstitutional in the United States.  In addition, many point out
that this treaty is extraordinarily invasive and lacks strong privacy
protections, that it could actually promote insecurity of computer
systems through required disclosure of decryption keys, and that the
criminal liability placed on businesses could increase their
surveillance of employees.

For more information about the Convention, see EPIC's page on the
Convention on Cybercrime:


EPIC's statement in opposition to the Convention on Cybercrime:



On September 30, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing called
"ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet Root Servers and the Domain
Name System (DNS)."  Representatives of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Department of State, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the
Department of Homeland Security, Verisign Inc., and an administrator
of the B Root Server were invited to testify on these issues.  The
Senators briefly questioned ICANN's progress in fulfilling its
mandate, but spent more time inquiring about the stability of the root
servers, at one point asking the B Root Administrator what keeps him
up at night.  His answer: root server administration and coordination
is working well -- it is the end users that are a cause of concern.
Ambassador Gross of the Department of State testified about the new
United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance currently being
established under the mandate of the World Summit on the Information
Society.  Many people around the world, particularly in developing
countries, are dissatisfied with the way the Internet is governed and
feel some degree of reform is necessary. The Working Group has been
given the task of mapping out Internet governance and suggesting key
areas that need attention.  Despite the earnest testimony of
Ambassador Gross, the Senators were apprehensive about the United
Nations "meddling" and expressed no interest in the concerns of those
who feel excluded in decisions concerning the global Internet.  The
Senators appeared pleased with the testimony and reassured that the
Internet is stable.

Testimony from the Senate hearing:


The Public Voice news on the Working Group on Internet Governance:


[7] EPIC Bookstore: Losing America

Robert C. Byrd, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant
Presidency (W.W. Norton & Company 2004).


Watching Senator Byrd deliver a speech from the floor of the United
States Senate provides one of the better arguments for the creation of
C-Span.  A discussion on a legislative matter may include references
to Periclean Athens, the Magna Carta, or the Founding Fathers.  Say
what you will about the former majority leader, this is a person who
cares passionately about the history of democratic government.

Thus a book by Senator Byrd on the functioning of the U.S. government
after 9-11 is worth a close look.  His attack on the President, and
many of his own Congressional colleagues, rings as did the
colonialists' broadside against another George when the country was
founded.  Although Senator Byrd spends much of the book exploring the
rush to war (and the Congress' failure to preserve is own
constitutional authority), it is the discussion of the USA PATRIOT Act
and the Department of Homeland Security that will be of greatest
interest to the civil liberties community.

Senator Byrd says bluntly the USA PATRIOT Act was "a case study in the
perils of speed, herd instinct, and lack of vigilance when it comes to
legislating in the face of a crisis . . . The Congress basically got
stampeded by Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the values of
freedom, justice, and equality received a trampling in the headlong

Now, many critics of the USA PATRIOT Act would typically go on to say
that some of the law's provisions were necessary and important, but
Senator Byrd is reluctant to concede this point.  He argues, as too
few Members of Congress do, that "removing the wall" between
traditional criminal investigations and foreign intelligence
investigations "dangerously blurs the distinction between the two."
Simply stated, the USA PATRIOT Act diminished constitutional
safeguards and allowed the U.S. government to spy on its citizens.

The discussion of the creation of Department of Homeland Security is
another story of expansive executive powers.  Though Senator Byrd
obviously liked Tom Ridge, who would later become Secretary of the
agency, he was not pleased about the proposal for the Department nor
the secrecy with which it was introduced.  He writes, "I believe that
under the guise of creating a new Homeland Security Department, the
president had succeeded in limiting Congressional oversight and
removing limitations on executive power."

Byrd points specifically to the changes in open government laws and
open meeting requirements, and the consolidation of information
sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  "The fire
walls intended to prevent the consolidation of such information and
the massing of too much police power by the federal government have
been removed."

Senator Byrd's sharp assault on President Bush could be dismissed as
election-year partisanship.  But Byrd is not a radio show demagogue,
trying to get on Larry King.  He has served in the Congress for over
fifty years.  He has worked closely with many different presidents,
and is as willing to criticize former Democratic presidents and he is
to praise Republican.

This President was recently rebuked by the Supreme Court for his
attempt to designate an American citizen an "enemy combatant" without
any judicial review.  Senator Byrd's book tells us that this is only
one of many instances where the President has sought to weaken the
constitutional checks and balances that safeguard the liberty of

-Marc Rotenberg


EPIC Publications:

"FOIA 2004: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Tiffany Stedman, editors (EPIC 2004). Price:
$40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004

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 22nd
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.


"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.


"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

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 CPSR Annual Conference: Making the Grade?: A Report Card on US
Policies for the Information Society. Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility. October 16, 2004. Washington, DC.  For more
information: http://cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg04.

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.

Private and Private International Law Issues Raised by Electronic
Commerce.  The Hague Conference on Private International Law, the
Netherlands Government and the International Chamber of Commerce.
October 26-27, 2004.  The Hague, Netherlands.  For more information:


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.

The 2004 Isaac Pitblado Lectures: Privacy -- Another Snail in the
Ginger Beer.  The Law Society of Manitoba, The Manitoba Bar
Association and the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law.  November
19-20, 2004.  Manitoba, Canada. For more information:

National Security, Law Enforcement and Data Protection.  British
Institute of International and Comparative Law Data Protection
Research and Policy Group.  December 8, 2004.  London, UK.  For more
information: http:www.biicl.org.

Seventh International General Online Research Conference.  German
Society for Online Research.  March 22-23, 2005.  Zurich, Switzerland.
For more information: http://www.gor.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 11.19 ----------------------