EPIC Alert 17.01
======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 17.01 January 15, 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1701.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/donate ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] Christmas Day Attack Prompts Renewed Debate about Body Scanners [2] Documents Prove that Scanners Record, Store, and Transmit Images [3] FTC Tells FCC that it is Pursuing EPIC's Cloud Computing Complaint [4] EPIC Files Supplemental Complaint Regarding Facebook [5] Google to Stop Filtering Search Results in China [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: "Media Ownership and Concentration in America" [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Stop Airport Strip Searches! - JOIN Facebook Group "Stop Airport Strip Searches" and INVITE Friends - DISPLAY the IMAGE http://thepublicvoice.org/nakedmachine.jpg - SUPPORT EPIC http://www.epic.org/donate/ ======================================================================= [1] Christmas Day Attack Prompts Renewed Debate about Body Scanners ======================================================================= On December 25, 2009, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab concealed explosives in his underwear and attempted to detonate them on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The attempt was unsuccessful, thanks in part to the efforts of other passengers. The public response to the incident has reignited the debate over airport security, especially body scanners. In the days following the attack, some advocated for wider implementation of whole body imaging machines. Privacy organizations and others have continued to object to these devices, citing the invasive nature of the scans, the ineffectiveness of the machines, and the lack of government transparency concerning privacy safeguards. In a series of responses to the American public, President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have hesitated to put forth body scanners as a wholesale solution to the problem. Instead they have focused primarily on the "failure to integrate and understand the intelligence we already had," and recommended "smarter screening." Obama noted that "There's no silver bullet to securing the thousands of flights into America each day." The President pledged to investigate and address intelligence failures that allowed an Al Qaeda operative to board a plane with an explosive device. President Obama stated "this was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence we already had." The President said that steps would be taken to improve watch lists. Currently the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operates forty of the whole-body imaging machines at nineteen domestic airports as a secondary screening tool. In the wake of the attempted attack, the agency has ordered 150 more, and secured funding for another 300, as part of a plan to begin implementing the machines as a primary screening tool, instead of reserving them for secondary screening only, as had been the original policy. Britain, the Netherlands, France, and Italy have all announced their intention to install the scanners at their own airports as well, although the European Union's justice commissioner-designate has urged the European Parliament to look at less intrusive methods of screening. Reactions around the world are mixed. In widely reported remarks, Viviane Reding, the Justice Minister for the 27-member European Union, expressed opposition to the US proposal to deploy body scanners. Minister Reding told the European Parliament, "Our citizens are not objects. They are human beings." Ms. Reding also emphasized data protection and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establishes new rights for EU citizens, including a right to information privacy. Previous post-9/11 disputes between the US and the EU have involved the transfer of Passenger Name Records and financial information. EPIC: Whole Body Imaging http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Documents Obtained by FOIA from TSA http://epic.org/2010/01/update---epic-posts-tsa-docume.html EPIC: Open Government http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ TSA: Imaging Technology http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm Privacy Coalition: Stop Whole Body Imaging http://privacycoalition.org/stopwholebodyimaging/ ======================================================================= [2] Documents Prove that Scanners Record, Store, and Transmit Images ======================================================================= This week, EPIC obtained documents that prove that whole body imaging machines can record, store, and transmit images. This contradicts repeated assurances made by the TSA on its website and in the media. These documents were obtained as part of a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit was filed over a request that EPIC originally submitted to the Department of Homeland Security in April 2009. EPIC submitted the FOIA request after the TSA unilaterally decided to replace metal detectors with body scanners, over the objections of air travel organizations, security experts, and members of the United States Congress. In fact, more than 300 members of Congress voted for legislation to stop the deployment of body scanners as the primary screening device. The documents obtained by EPIC include TSA Procurement Specifications, TSA Operational Requirements, a TSA contract with L3, and two TSA contracts with Rapiscan . The DHS has withheld other documents that EPIC is seeking. The documents state that an unspecified number of Level Z users can exercise the full storage and data transfer capabilities of the machines. These users can turn off image privacy filters, export raw image data, and access test mode. Test mode allows the user to transfer raw image data in real time to a USB device. These documents also reveal that there are numerous security threats inherent in the WBI machines' design. The WBI machines are subject to outside security threats because they employ Windows XP operating system and the Ethernet network. Contrary to TSA's claims about WBI machines, these documents make clear that the WBI machines are designed to allow for the production of images with no privacy filters and to allow for the storage and transfer of those images. The capability to create unfiltered images and to store and transmit those images was expressly required by TSA in its Operational Requirements and Procurement Specifications. EPIC is continuing to pursue the unreleased documents that are responsive to its April 2009 request, as well as another related request to the Department of Homeland Security. The documents obtained by EPIC from the DHS concerning the actual operation of the body scanners has been widely report in the national and the international meda, including CNN and The New York Time. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also obtained a copy of a redacted report by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority regarding a pilot project that was done with WBI machines. TSA, Procurement Specifications Document (September 23, 2008) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf TSA, Operational Requirements Document (July 2006) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Ops_Requirements.pdf TSA, Contract with L3 http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Millwave_Contract.pdf TSA, Contract with Rapiscan (1) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Rapiscan_Contract.pdf TSA, Contract with Rapiscan (2) http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Rapiscan_Manufacturer.pdf Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, report on WBI machines http://ccla.org/?p=3039 ======================================================================= [3] FTC Tells FCC that it is Pursuing EPIC's Cloud Computing Complaint ======================================================================= In response to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Notice of Inquiry into how broadband relates to cloud computing and privacy, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it is investigating the privacy implications of cloud computing for consumers. The FTC, which shares jurisdiction with the FCC over broadband issues, is now urging the FCC to consider the privacy implications of cloud computing in formulating the National Broadband Plan, due to Congress next month. The FTC's interest in cloud computing was prompted by an EPIC complaint to the FTC in March 2009, in which EPIC described numerous privacy and security risk involving cloud-based applications. More specifically, the complaint asked the FTC to investigate Google's cloud computing services and to determine the adequacy of the company's privacy and security safeguards. A subsequent letter from computer researchers and security experts supported EPIC's findings. The letter, written to Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, asked the company to "honor the important privacy promises it has made to its customers and protect users' communications from theft and snooping by enabling industry standard transport encryption technology (HTTPS) for Google Mail, Docs, and Calendar." The letter was signed by 38 researchers and academics in the fields of computer science, information security and privacy law. In a filing to the FCC, David Vladeck, head of FTC's consumer protection bureau, recognized the cost-saving value of cloud computing services. At the same time, Vladeck and the FTC believe such services raise privacy and security concerns for consumers: "For example, the ability of cloud computing services to collect and centrally store increasing amounts of consumer data, combined with the ease with which such centrally stored data may be shared with others, create a risk that larger amounts of data may be used by entities not originally intended or understood by consumers." FCC: National Broadband Plan http://www.broadband.gov/ EPIC, Cloud Computing Complaint (March 17, 2009) http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/google/ftc031709.pdf EPIC, Letter to Google Regarding Cloud Computing (June 16, 2009) http://files.cloudprivacy.net/google-letter-final.pdf FTC, Filing for FCC Notice of Inquiry (December 9, 2009) http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020352132 EPIC: Cloud Computing http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/ ======================================================================= [4] EPIC Files Supplemental Complaint Regarding Facebook ======================================================================= On January 14, 2010, EPIC filed a supplemental complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) discussing Facebook's recent privacy changes. The supplemental complaint provides further evidence of Facebook's ongoing "unfair and deceptive trade practices" and relates to CEO Mark Zuckerberg's public statements, the most recent version of the Facebook for iPhone application, Facebook Connect, and "web-suicide" applications. The supplemental filing comes after Facebook made public statements implying that the FTC approved the privacy changes. The original complaint alleged that the Facebook privacy "changes violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook's own representations." Subsequent to the original FTC filing, Facebook spokespersons made several public statements, asserting, "We discussed the privacy program with many regulators, including the FTC, prior to launch." EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Trade Commission, seeking communications with Facebook discussing the site's recent privacy changes. Specifically, EPIC requested documents pertaining to the communications Facebook allegedly had with the federal agency. Shortly after EPIC filed the FOIA request, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz denied Facebook's assertions that the federal agency approved Facebook's privacy changes. He stated, "We aren't generally in the business of giving general advisory opinion in advance. I certainly don't think anyone would suggest that we would pre-clear their new privacy policy. It may be good. It may be better or it may not be better. But we aren't the film industry; we don't greenlight like the film industry does." EPIC, Supplemental Complaint (January 14, 2010) http://www.epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC_Facebook_Supp.pdf Facebook, statements regarding FTC complaint (January 14, 2010) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410fbstatements.html EPIC, Facebook FOIA request (December 23, 2009) http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/FTC_Facebook_FOIA.pdf Chairman Leibowitz's statement: http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410leibowitzstmt.html EPIC: In re Facebook: http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook ======================================================================= [5] Google to Stop Filtering Search Results in China ======================================================================= Google has announced that it will no longer censor results on the Chinese version of its search engine, Google.cn, after discovering serious security breaches on its corporate cloud infrastructure originating from China. Chinese law requires Internet companies to install Internet filters, and up until now Google has complied. According to Human Rights Watch, China has enacted several sets of regulations aimed at controlling Internet content, including access to content hosted outside of China, since commercial Internet accounts were first authorized in 1994. The Chinese government continues to control journalists, and sanctions individuals who "write or post articles critical of the political system or send news outside China." Civil society groups have widely opposed mandated filtering, censorship of Internet content, surveillance of Internet users. In the Seoul and the Madrid Declaration, advocates urged governments and Internet firms to uphold national and international human rights law that protects privacy and freedom of expression. Advocates warned that "the failure to safeguard privacy jeopardizes associated freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of access to information." The Declaration made clear objections to the "dramatic expansion of secret and unaccountable surveillance, as well as the growing collaboration between governments and vendors of surveillance technology that establish new forms of social control," and warned about "the growing consolidation of Internet-based services, and the fact that some corporations are acquiring vast amounts of personal data without independent oversight." In June 2009, EPIC has formally asked the Federal Trade Commission to open an investigation into Google's Cloud Computing Services to determine "the adequacy of the privacy and security safeguards." EPIC cited the growing dependence of American consumers, businesses, and federal agencies on cloud computing services, and urged the Commission to take "such measures as are necessary" to ensure the safety and security of information submitted to Google. The Madrid Declaration is a substantial document that reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies new challenges, and recommends specific actions. More than 250 individuals and organizations have signed the Declaration. To sign on, please send an email to privacy@datos-personales.org. Google, A new approach to China (January 12, 2010) http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html EPIC: Privacy and Human Rights Report: China http://epic.org/phr06/ EPIC: Filters & Freedom 2.0 http://epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0/ EPIC: Faulty Filters http://epic.org/reports/filter_report.html Open Net Initiative: China Report http://opennet.net/country/china Human Rights Watch World Report 2005 & 2009: China Country Report http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/china9809.htm http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79301 CSISAC, The Seoul Declaration (2008) http://csisac.org/seoul.php The Public Voice, The Madrid Declaration (2009) http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= Oral Arguments Begin in FB Beacon case Oral arguments in Harris v. Blockbuster are scheduled to be heard on March 1, 2010. The case involves violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The lawsuit was filed by Cathryn Harris and other Facebook users after Blockbuster made public their private video rental information through Facebook Beacon. EPIC filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals urging the Court to enforce federal privacy protections for Facebook users who rented videos from Blockbuster. EPIC: Harris v. Blockbuster http://epic.org/amicus/blockbuster/default.html Video Privacy Protection Act http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/ EPIC’s amicus brief in Harris v. Blockbuster http://epic.org/amicus/blockbuster/Blockbuster_amicus.pdf EPIC: Facebook Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ Facebook CEO, Zuckerberg, says privacy is no longer a "social norm" Last week Facebook CEO Marc Zuckerberg stated in an interview that privacy is no longer a "social norm" and that recent changes to Facebook's privacy policy merely reflect that change in social norms. However, the response of Facebook users and critics to recent actions by Facebook indicate that privacy is a robust social norm. Facebook has recently come under fire by EPIC and others for its Beacon advertising platform, terms of service changes, and privacy policy changes. That inconsistency led the New York Times to argue that the "company's justifications of the claim that they are reflecting broader social trends just aren't credible." New York Times Story http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410nytimestory.html PC World Story http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410pcworldstory.html EPIC: Facebook Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ EPIC: In re Facebook http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/ EPIC: Frequently Asked Questions Regarding EPIC's Facebook Complaint http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/fbfaq.html EPIC: Social Networking Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/ Obama Names Howard Schmidt Cybersecurity Czar On December 22, 2009, President Obama announced Howard Schmidt as his pick for the position of Cybersecurity Coordinator. This is a new position in the Obama administration and exists within the Executive Office of the President. According to the White House, the new "cybersecurity czar" will be responsible for protecting America's public and private computer networks from attack. Schmidt has previously served as special adviser for cyberspace security under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003, and has also worked at Microsoft and eBay in addition to serving in the Air Force and the FBI. He will report to deputy national security adviser John O. Brennan. White House, Introducing the New Cybersecurity Coordinator (December 22, 2009) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410whitehousecybersecur.html EPIC: Critical Infrastructure Protection http://epic.org/security/cip/ White House: Executive Office of the President http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop President Obama Issues Order Regarding Classification Processes President Obama has issued a new executive order regarding Classified National Security Information. President Obama's classified information order establishes a National Declassification Center to streamline the declassification process and sets timetables for declassification. The order states that "No information may remain classified indefinitely." The order also reverses an order by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn't harm national security. The new order prohibits agencies from classifying documents after the fact and also prohibits the withholding of documents that were created by one agency but are being held by another, which should assist EPIC's pending Freedom of Information Act request to the National Security Agency regarding NSPD 54, a classified Directive that describes a NSA program to monitor American computer networks. EPIC's request was previously denied by the NSA because NSPD 54 "did not originate with" the NSA. For more information see EPIC: Open Government. President Obama, Executive Order (December 29, 2009) http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410execordertext.html President Bush's Previous Order http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html EPIC, FOIA Appeal for NSPD 54 (November 24, 2009) http://www.epic.org/foia/FOIAapp112409.pdf EPIC: Open Government http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ DHS Privacy Office Releases Data Mining Report The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office released its 2009 Data Mining Report to Congress on January 4, 2010. The annual report, which is required by statute as part of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, contains the office's report regarding all DHS activities that meet the law's definition of "data mining." The report identifies three such programs. The first is the Customs and Border Protection's Automated Targeting System, which analyzes traveler, cargo and conveyance information and compares it against law enforcement information. The second, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Data Analysis and Research for Trade Transparency , "analyzes trade and financial data to identify statistically anomalous transactions that may warrant investigation." The third identified program is the Transportation Security Administration's Freight Assessment System, which analyzes freight transportation data to identify cargo that might present a risk to passenger aircraft. The report concluded that for each project, "necessary privacy protections have been implemented." DHS: Data Mining Reports http://www.dhs.gov/files/publications/editorial_0514.shtm#4 DHS: Privacy Office http://www.dhs.gov/privacy EPIC: DHS Privacy Office and Privacy http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410implementrecc.html ======================================================================= [7] EPIC Bookstore: "Media Ownership and Concentration in America" ======================================================================= To purchase: http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410book.html "When it comes to media concentration, views are strong, theories abound, but numbers are scarce..." - Eli M. Noam Eli Noam's new book more than makes up for the previous dearth of numbers regarding media concentration. Noam carefully investigates the concentration of media ownership in America by analyzing 100 key industries to figure out whether or not fears about media mergers and concentration are really well founded. This book puts forth his complex, objective, and detailed analysis on media ownership trends. Noam begins with an analysis of historical media trends. He breezes through a brief and fascinating history of media in America and concludes that there has never truly been a "golden age" of American media diversity. The research presented here and elsewhere in the book suggest that there is a frequently repeated cycle of competitive entry, instability, and consolidation in media. Through these cycles, sources of media expand and contract regularly. Noam also addresses the ways in which technology changes the media game. For example, he confronts the oft-repeated idea the more voices means more diversity of opinion. Noam argues that this is not necessarily true if one takes into consideration how loud some voices are. Today's technology creates opportunities for a host of new voices, but they are relatively small, quiet voices, compared to big media companies. A blog, for example, may present a unique viewpoint, but may never be heard by more than its small group of readers. Noam then charts the market concentration trends for 100 separate information industries, including cable TV, radio, local phone service, internet service providers, daily newspapers, and TV set makers. He analyzes the trends in each industry carefully, with the help of numerous charts and graphs. In the end, Noam concludes that previous measurements of both concentration and diversity have proved insufficient, and he proposes a new "Media Ownership Concentration and Diversity Index", a complex equation that takes into account not only the concentration considerations of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, but also the diversity considerations of the Federal Communications' Voice Count Index. Using this new index, as well as more traditional measures, Noam concludes that there is reason for both fear and optimism regarding media concentration: media is, overall, becoming more concentrated, but in a way that is well within the cyclical nature of media concentration over time. --Ginger McCall ================================ EPIC Publications: "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2008," edited by Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC 2008). Price: $60. http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2008/ Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws. This updated version includes new material regarding the substantial FOIA amendments enacted on December 31, 2007. Many of the recent amendments are effective as of December 31, 2008. The standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2008 volume is the 24th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. ================================ "Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98. http://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more. Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law. ================================ "Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75. http://www.epic.org/phr06/ This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over 75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections, new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy. Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy and data protection ever published. ================================ "The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in the WSIS process. ================================ "The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/ The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students, attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials include the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act. ================================ "Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0 A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering threatens free expression. ================================ EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at: EPIC Bookstore http://www.epic.org/bookstore ================================ EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at: https:/mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= "Critical Reflections on the Growth of CCTV in the UK" University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, January 20, 2010 For more information: http://www.epic.org/redirect/011410ischool.html "Annual Privacy Coalition meeting" EPIC, Washington, DC,, January 21-23, 2010. For more information: http://www.theprivacycoalition.org "Reader Privacy: Should Library Standards Apply Online?" University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, January 22, 2010. "Body Scanners and Privacy" EPIC Panel Discussion with Bruce Schneier, Security Expert, and Author, and Anita Allen, Deputy Dean University of Penn. Law School, Washington, DC, January 25, 2010. For more information: http://epic.org/events/ "Privacy By Design: The Gold Standard" Toronto Board of Trade, Toronto, ON, January 28, 2010. For more information: www.privacybydesign.ca "Data Privacy Day" Worldwide, January 28, 2010. For more information: http://www.thepublicvoice.org "Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection: An Element of Choice," Brussels, Belgium, January 29-30, 2010. For more information: http://www.cpdpconferences.org/ "RSA 2010" San Francisco, March 1-5, 2010. For more information: http://www.rsaconference.com/2010/usa/ "7th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records" Williamsburg, VA, March 3-5, 2010. For more information: http://www.legaltechcenter.net/default.aspx "Association for Practical and Professional Ethics" Cincinnati,OH, March 5, 2010. For more information: http://www.indiana.edu/~appe/annualmeeting.html "Privacy 2010" Stanford, CA, March 23 - 25, 2010. For more information: http://codex.stanford.edu/privacy2010 ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook http//facebook.com/epicprivacy http://epic.org/facebook Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC. ======================================================================= Privacy Policy ======================================================================= The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." ======================================================================= About EPIC ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center 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 (fax). ======================================================================= Donate to EPIC ======================================================================= 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: http://www.epic.org/donate 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. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface: http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic_news Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 17.01 ------------------------ .
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.