Focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues

EPIC Alert 20.14

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 20.14 July 12, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== [1] EPIC Urges US Supreme Court to Suspend NSA Domestic Surveillance [2] EPIC Speaks Before Oversight Board; Former Judge Questions FISC [3] EPIC FOIA Document Reveals CIA Collusion in Domestic Surveillance [4] EU Parliament to Investigate NSA Surveillance, Impact on EU Privacy [5] Thousands Support EPIC's Petition to NSA for Public Rulemaking [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Bookstore [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Sign EPIC's Petition Against NSA Domestic Surveillance! - SIGN the Petition: - LEARN More: - SUPPORT EPIC: ======================================================================== [1] EPIC Urges US Supreme Court to Suspend NSA Domestic Surveillance ======================================================================== EPIC has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to vacate an unlawful order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that enables the NSA's collection of all domestic phone records. On April 25, the secret court ordered Verizon to turn over all "call detail records" for calls made "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls." The FISC's order is based on Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which allows the court to compel the disclosure of business records that are "relevant to an authorized investigation." The Verizon order, however, requires the disclosure of all telephone records in the company's database. "It is simply not possible that every phone record in the possession of a telecommunications firm could be relevant to an authorized investigation," EPIC states. "Such an interpretation of [the law] would render meaningless the qualifying phrases contained in the provision and eviscerate the purpose of the Act. "To define the scope of the records sought as 'everything' nullifies the relevance limitation in the statute," EPIC continues. "If law enforcement has 'everything,' there will always be some subset of 'everything' that is relevant to something." The call detail records provided to the NSA, called "telephony metadata," contain an immense amount of sensitive personal information. The records identify the phone numbers of both parties on a call, the call's time and duration, and the geographic location of each phone number. When aggregated, such records can map out "the daily activities, interactions, personal and business relationships, religious and political affiliations, and other intimate details of millions of Americans," says EPIC. EPIC's petition asks the Supreme Court to issue a "writ of mandamus" vacating the Verizon Order issued by the FISC. Mandamus is a command from a higher court to a lower court or government official, used when a lower court extends beyond the scope of its legal authority. EPIC writes, "Mandamus relief is warranted because the FISC exceeded its statutory jurisdiction when it ordered the production of millions of domestic telephone records that cannot plausibly be relevant to an authorized investigation." EPIC brought the petition directly to the Supreme Court because no other court has jurisdiction to address the unlawful order. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows only the government and the recipient of a production order (i.e. Verizon) to appear before the FISC or the Court of Review. Additionally, the law limits these courts to hearing only certain types of appeals. EPIC, a Verizon customer whose call records are subject to the order, would not be able to obtain relief from these courts. EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court re: Verizon Order (Jul. 8, 2013) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: Verizon Order (Apr. 25, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) EPIC: USA PATRIOT Act EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ======================================================================== [2] EPIC Speaks Before Oversight Board; Former Judge Questions FISC ======================================================================== EPIC President Marc Rotenberg spoke before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board at a July 10 meeting on the NSA's domestic surveillance programs. Mr. Rotenberg drew the Board's attention to EPIC's recent responses to revelations that the NSA routinely collects all call records in the United States, including EPIC's petition to the US Supreme Court, challenging the legal authority of the Verizon order (see [1] above); several Freedom of Information Act requests; EPIC's recommendation that the FCC investigate whether Verizon violated Section 222 of the Communications Act when the company disclosed customer records to the National Security Agency; and a direct petition to NSA Director General Keith Alexander for a public rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Rotenberg also explained to the Oversight Board that current US law does not recognize that metadata is often more valuable than the content of communications, more easily analyzed, and therefore should be entitled to greater protection. Mr. Rotenberg also warned that once data is collected it will be used for other purposes: "Data chases applications," said Mr. Rotenberg. EPIC's President cited the recommendations of former MIT President Jerome Weisner that technology can help protect privacy, but "the basic safeguards cannot be provided by new inventions. They must be provided by the legislative and legal systems of this country. We must face the need to provide adequate guarantees for individual privacy." Retired Judge James Robertson, who served on the FISA Court, told the panel that he was "stunned" by the news that the government was collecting all domestic telephone metadata. He also said that the surveillance court needed a public representative to ensure an adversarial process when orders for surveillance are considered. PCLOB: Meeting Agenda (Jul. 9, 2013) EPIC: Statement for the Record at PCLOB Workshop (Jul. 9, 2013) PCLOB: Semi-Annual Report (Jun. 27, 2013) EPIC: Recommendations to PCLOB (Oct. 26, 2012) EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court re: Verizon Order (Jul. 8, 2013) ======================================================================== [3] EPIC FOIA Document Reveals CIA Collusion in Domestic Surveillance ======================================================================== According to a CIA Inspector General's report obtained by EPIC through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the agency has collaborated with the New York Police Department in domestic surveillance efforts. The IG report was prepared in response to an investigation by the Associated Press, which revealed that the NYPD and the CIA had collaborated on a program of domestic surveillance targeting Muslims and persons of Arab descent. The CIA is prohibited from participating in domestic surveillance, but the report found that the agency had embedded four officers within the NYPD over the past decade. According to the report, the CIA's collaboration with the NYPD was rife with "irregular personnel practices," bereft of "formal documentation in some important instances," and that "there was inadequate direction and control" by agency supervisors. The CIA originally claimed that there was "no evidence that any part of the agency's support to the NYPD constituted 'domestic spying,'" a statement contradicted by the Inspector General's Report. The report called the relationship between the CIA and the NYPD "unique" and stated that the IG was "unaware of any similar relationships." The case is EPIC v. Central Intelligence Agency, Case No. 12-02053 (DDC filed Dec. 20, 2012). EPIC: FOIA Documents on CIA OIG Report (Dec. 27, 2011) New York Times: Article on CIA and NYPD (Jun. 26, 2013) ties-to-new-york-police.html EPIC: EPIC v. CIA - Domestic Surveillance ======================================================================== [4] EU Parliament to Investigate NSA Surveillance, Impact on EU Privacy ======================================================================== At a July 8 plenary session focused on the "fundamental rights" of Europeans, the European Parliament voted 483-98 in favor of a resolution to launch an investigation into US surveillance programs. European MPs expressed "serious concern over PRISM and other surveillance" programs implemented by the US, condemned the US's collection of European citizens' data, and called on "the US authorities to provide them with full information on these allegations without further delay." 65 European MPs abstained from the vote. The EU's investigation will be undertaken by the influential Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs, or LIBE, which will "gather information and evidence from both US and EU sources and present its conclusions in a resolution by the end of the year." The EU Parliament anticipates that the study will be used to assess the impact of US surveillance activities on EU citizens' rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression, and "the presumption of innocence and the right to an effective remedy." Members of Parliament also urged European representatives to reexamine current arrangements that permit the transfer of banking and travel data between the EU and the US. The resolution considers suspending the data sharing while the investigation is pending. The Parliament's resolution was adopted as the EU considers a new trade deal with the US. The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership, or TTIP, would lower many trade barriers between Europe and the US. Members of the European Parliament noted in their resolution, however, that EU data protection standards should not be undermined as a result of TTIP. EPIC has been active in public discussions surrounding TTIP, and has argued that "those issues like data privacy, which are very important and very difficult to resolve in a trade agreement context, should not be forced into the [TTIP] agreement." Rather, EPIC has maintained that the US should update its privacy laws and ratify Council of Europe Convention 108. EPIC has also appeared several times before the European Parliament, urging the adoption of a comprehensive privacy framework on personal information. European Parliament: Press Release on Resolution (Jul. 8, 2013) European Parliament: Text of Resolution (Jul. 4, 2013) European Parliament: LIBE Committee EPIC: Comments on TTIP (May 10, 2013) EPIC: Testimony Before EU Parliament on TTIP (Oct. 10, 2012) EPIC: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive The Public Voice: Madrid Privacy Declaration (Nov. 3, 2009) ======================================================================== [5] Thousands Support EPIC's Petition to NSA for Public Rulemaking ======================================================================== Nearly 2500 members of the public have joined EPIC's petition to suspend the NSA's domestic surveillance programs. The petition, addressed to NSA head Gen. Keith Alexander, states that the NSA's collection of domestic communications constitutes a "legislative rule," meaning that it requires publication in the Federal Register and a period of public comment before it can be implemented as a regular practice. EPIC's petition also states that the NSA's domestic surveillance "substantively affects the public to a degree sufficient to implicate the policy interests" that require public comment, and that "NSA's collection of domestic communications absent the opportunity for public comment is unlawful." "NSA's collection of domestic communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended," EPIC's petition argues. EPIC, joined by leading privacy experts including James Bamford, Whitfield Diffie, and Bruce Schneier, first petitioned the agency on June 17. The petition now has been signed by other distinguished privacy scholars, law professors, and computer scientists, and by members of the public representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. EPIC intends to renew the request each week until the NSA responds. On July 8, EPIC filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, asking that the Court vacate an unlawful order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that enables the NSA's collection of all domestic telephone records. EPIC: Petition to the NSA (Jun. 28, 2013) EPIC: Text of FISC Order to Verizon (Apr. 25, 2013) EPIC: Petition to the Supreme Court re: Verizon Order (Jul. 8, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) EPIC: USA PATRIOT Act EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== EPIC, Coalition Endorse 'Washington Statement,' Support Data Protection EPIC has joined a coalition of civil society groups in support of the Washington Statement, a declaration in support of strong international standards for privacy protection. The Washington Statement was released in conjunction with the 23rd Annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference held June 25-26 in Washington, DC. CFP brings together digital activists and representatives of government, civil society, and academia in order to "to engage the public and policymakers in discussions about the information society and the future of technology, innovation, and freedom." "Privacy is a basic human right set out in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," the Washington Statement reads. The Statement's signatories call on US policymakers to end unlawful surveillance of Internet communications, and urge EU policymakers to move forward with an updated legal framework for data protection. The Washington Statement in Support of Data Protection (Jun. 14, 2013) 23rd Annual Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference (Jun. 25-26, 2013) The Public Voice: The Madrid Privacy Declaration (Nov. 3, 2009) EPIC: The Public Voice FCC Updates Privacy Rules for Mobile Devices; EPIC Provides Comments The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that telecommunications carriers must follow Consumer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) safeguards for information stored on mobile devices. "When a telecommunications carrier collects CPNI using its control of its customers' mobile devices, and the carrier or its designee has access to or control over the information, the carrier is responsible for safeguarding that information," the Commission wrote. FCC Chair Mignon Clyburn stated that "[p]rotecting consumer privacy is a key component of our mission to serve the public interest," while Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel urged the Commission to take note of the growing "market incentives to keep our data and slice and dice it to inform commercial activity." EPIC participated in the agency review and filed comments urging the Commission to require mobile carriers to implement fair information practices and to adopt techniques for encryption. EPIC has also asked the FCC to investigate Verizon for unlawfully disclosing the telephone records of millions of Americans in response to an invalid order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. FCC: Press Release on Wireless Privacy Ruling (Jun. 27, 2013) EPIC: Comments to FCC on Wireless Data Privacy (Jul. 13, 2012) EPIC: Letter to FCC re: NSA/Verizon Order (Jun. 11, 2013) EPIC: CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) Report: Wiretaps Up 24% in 2012, Primary Targets Are Mobile Devices The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has issued the 2012 Wiretap Report. The annual report provides comprehensive data on all federal and state wiretap applications, including the types of crimes investigated, costs involved and subsequent arrests or convictions. In contrast, the annual report from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court provides almost no information about a surveillance authority that is routinely directed toward the American public. According to the 2012 Wiretap Report, 3,395 intercept orders were issued in 2012. Of these orders, 3,292 (97%) targeted "portable devices" and 7 were "roving" taps to target individuals using multiple devices. The vast majority (87%) of wiretaps were issued in narcotics investigations, though some involved multiple offenses. In 2012, installed wiretaps were in operation for an average of 39 days, three days less the than the 2011 average. Encryption was reported for 15 wiretaps in 2012 vs. 7 wiretaps conducted during previous years. In four of these wiretaps, officials were unable to decipher the messages' plaintext. This is the first time since the Administrative Office began collecting encryption data in 2001 that jurisdictions have reported that encryption prevented officials from obtaining communications' plaintext. There were 3,743 arrests related to these intercepts, which resulted in 455 (12%) convictions. EPIC maintains a comprehensive index of the annual wiretap reports and FISA reports. US Courts Administrative Office: 2012 Wiretap Report (July 2013) US DOJ: Annual FISC Report (Apr. 30, 2013) EPIC: Title III Wiretap Orders - Stats EPIC: Wiretapping EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Privacy International Files Complaint Against NSA, GCHQ Programs Privacy International, a leading privacy organization based in London, has filed a legal complaint with a UK tribunal about recently disclosed surveillance programs. Privacy International asserts that the NSA and its UK counterpart, GCHQ, have been conducting dragnet surveillance of American and British citizens without any public accountability. Privacy International also charges that by accessing the NSA's information pool, the British government is acting outside the rule of law. "If UK authorities are to be permitted to access such information in relation to those located in the UK in secret and without their knowledge or consent, the European Convention of Human Rights Articles 8 and 10 requires there to be a legal regime in place which contains sufficient safeguards against abuse of power and arbitrary use. There is no such regime," the complaint states. EPIC has also filed a petition in the US Supreme Court, alleging that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court exceeded legal authority when it issued the order for Verizon to turn over all domestic customer telephone records. Privacy International: Complaint Against NSA and GCHQ (Jul. 8, 2013) Privacy International EPIC: Text of NSA Verizon Order (Apr. 25, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance EPIC: NSA Petition EPIC: NSA - Verizon Phone Record Monitoring EU Officials Recommend Do Not Track by Default The EU International Working Group on Data Protection, a group of leading privacy experts from around the world, has released a white paper on online behavioral advertising. The white paper asserts that web tracking allows companies to "monitor every single aspect of the behavior of an identified user across websites," and warns that the W3C's current efforts to develop a Do Not Track standard could "remain a sugar pill instead of being a proper cure and would . . . be useless." Instead, the Working Group has recommended that "the default setting should be such that the user is not tracked" and that there be no invisible tracking of users. Earlier in 2013, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chair of the US Senate Commerce Committee, re-introduced legislation to regulate the commercial surveillance of consumers online. EU DP Working Group: Paper on Web Tracking and Privacy (Apr. 2013) Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): Do-Not-Track Bill (Feb. 28, 2013) EPIC: Online Tracking and Behavioral Profiling EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive EPIC: Federal Trade Commission ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== Opinion: "Trying to Make FISA Less Secret." The New York Times, July 11, 2013. less-secret/ "Fed Surveillance More Widespread Than You Think [Video]." CBN, July 11, 2013. Widespread-Than-You-Think/ "French lawsuit filed over alleged NSA snooping." Associated Press, July 11, 2013. filed-over-alleged-nsa-snooping/YLBl0WIhp1yX4BSS0JV6UP/story.html "A Younger Alito Backed Privacy Protections." The Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2013. SB10001424127887324879504578597652669686138- lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwMDExNDAyWj.html? Opinion: "Privacy and the FISA Court." Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2013. 20130710,0,3419459.story "Experts Debate Legal Questions Surrounding U.S. Surveillance Efforts." Bloomberg BNA, July 10, 2013. "The Supreme Court's Power To Hear In re EPIC." Lawfare, July 10, 2013. hear-in-re-epic/ "A Closer Look at The Unusual EPIC Writ That Bypasses Lower Courts." FindLaw, July 10, 2013. the-unusual-epic-writ-that-bypasses-lower-courts.html "Supreme Court asked to stop NSA telephone surveillance." CNN, July 9, 2013. "Could the Supreme Court stop the NSA?" The Washington Post, July 9, 2013. nsa-litigation-could-go-straight-to-the-supreme-court/ "Supreme Court asked to halt NSA phone surveillance." Ars Technica, July 8, 2013. halt-nsa-phone-surveillance/ "Privacy group EPIC challenges NSA phone surveillance in Supreme Court petition." The Verge, July 8, 2013. nsa-phone-surveillance-in-supreme-court "Challenge to global phone taps." SCOTUSBlog, July 8, 2013. "Group EPIC to sue over NSA surveillance." USA Today, July 8, 2013. security-agency-lawsuit/2497823/ "Privacy Group EPIC Asks Supreme Court to Halt NSA Phone Spying." Wired, July 8, 2013. "US privacy group challenging NSA and FBI collection of phone records." The Guardian, July 8, 2013. challenge "Privacy group EPIC to ask Supreme Court to halt NSA phone spying." The Hill, July 8, 2013. group-to-ask-supreme-court-to-halt-nsa-phone- "Privacy Group EPIC to Ask Supreme Court to Stop N.S.A.'s Phone Spying Program." The New York Times, July 7, 2013. supreme-court-to-stop-nsas-phone-spying-program.html?_r=0 Editorial: "The C.I.A. and the N.Y.P.D." The New York Times, July 5, 2013. "European regulators step up pressure on Google over privacy policies." The Washington Post, July 5, 2013. regulators-step-up-pressure-on-google-over-privacy-policies/ 2013/07/05/27a48a12-e58c-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html "U.S. Border Agency Allows Others to Use Its Drones." The New York Times, July 3, 2013. frequent-lender-of-its-drones.html "Your child's data is stored in the cloud [video]." CNN Money, June 28, 2013. index.html?iid=HP_LN "FTC's 'Reclaim Your Name' alone won't rein in data brokers, experts say." CSO Online, June 28, 2013. alone-won-t-rein-in-data-brokers-experts-say Opinion: "When Big Brother Meets Big Data." The Huffington Post, June 27, 2013. surveillance-supercomputers_b_3510905.html "C.I.A. Report Finds Concerns With Ties to New York Police." The New York Times, June 26, 2013. ties-to-new-york-police.html?pagewanted=all For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================== [8] EPIC Bookstore ======================================================================== "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75. 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 President Obama's 2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's March 2009 memo on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under: the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2010 volume is the 25th 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, and constitutional values can be ordered at: EPIC 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: ======================================================================= [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= "The Snitch in Your Pocket," with EPIC Appellate Advocacy Counsel Alan Butler. Chautauqua, NY, 17 July 2013. For More Information: The Public Voice Conference, Warsaw, Poland, September 2013. For More Information: ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET. 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 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: 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 and private-sector infringement on constitutional values. Thank you for your support. ======================================================================= 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. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 20.14------------------------