Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.

EPIC's Mission
Focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues

EPIC Alert 20.16

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 20.16 August 14, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== [1] Privacy Law Scholars Support EPIC's Supreme Court Petition [2] President Announces Plan to Address Surveillance Concerns [3] Administration Argues NSA Domestic Surveillance is Lawful; President Supports FISA Court Adversary [4] TSA Conducts Warrantless Searches Outside of Airports [5] EPIC's Rotenberg: 'Progress at the White House But Surveillance is Still Unlawful' [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Rise of the Warrior Cop' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Sign EPIC's Petition Against NSA Domestic Surveillance! - SIGN the Petition: - LEARN More: - SUPPORT EPIC: ======================================================================== [1] Privacy Law Scholars Support EPIC's Supreme Court Petition ======================================================================== Leading US privacy law scholars have filed a series of "friend of the court" briefs with the US Supreme Court, supporting EPIC's challenge to the NSA domestic surveillance program. Meanwhile, the US Solicitor General has asked the Clerk of the Court for more time to respond to EPIC's petition filed by EPIC. The first "friend of the court" brief, by privacy and surveillance law professor Fred Cate, analyzes Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and argues that the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata is unlawful. The brief states that "[t]he government's defense of the Verizon Order reflects a significant rewriting of the law and permits the illegal construction of a comprehensive database of data about U.S. persons' communications." The brief explains that the program: 1) does not meet the strict legal standard of the statute's text; 2) is contrary to the Executive Order governing intelligence operations, and 3) violates provisions of the Patriot Act that safeguard First Amendment-protected speech. The second brief, written by law professors Laura Donohue and Erwin Chemerinsky and joined by Former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Senator Gary Hart, and members of the 1970's Church Committee, and submitted by constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky and 28 other law professors, outlines the history of NSA domestic surveillance conducted under the guise of foreign intelligence programs. The brief explains that "illegal activities, abuse of authority, and violations of privacy uncovered by the [Church] Committee spurred Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," which prevents intelligence agencies from using foreign intelligence authority to justify domestic surveillance. The third brief was filed by a group of constitutional scholars at the Cato Institute, including James Harper and Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University,argues that collection of domestic telephone records is both unlawful under the FISA and unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Cato brief states that the Verizon order is exactly the type of "general warrant" the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent, and that the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in United States v. Jones demonstrates that "EPIC has a legal and constitutional interest in data about its telephone calls." The fourth brief was written by two preeminent scholars of the federal courts. Professors James E. Pfander and Steven I. Vladeck argued that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case and the authority to grant EPIC's petition. Pfander and Vladeck maintain that " the writ of mandamus "would be in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction"; that "adequate relief for [EPIC's] claims cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court"; that EPIC clearly has Article III standing to challenge the unlawful order because EPIC's own telephone records are being collected. The Clerk of the Court granted the Solicitor General's motion for an extension, and the new deadline for a government response to EPIC's petition is September 11, 2013. Indiana University: Brief by F. Cate on Section 215 (Aug. 9, 2013) Syracuse U.: Brief from L. Donohue, E. Chemerinsky et al. (Aug. 2013) CATO Institute: Brief by J. Harper and R. Barnett (Aug. 2013) EPIC: Brief from J. Pfander and S. Vladeck et al. (Aug. 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance ======================================================================== [2] President Announces Plan to Address Surveillance Concerns ======================================================================== In remarks at the White House August 9, President Obama addressed growing public concern about the scope of the NSA's surveillance activities. Following a series of meetings that occurred earlier in the week with civil liberties organizations, tech companies, and Congressional leaders, the President announced "four specific steps" to move the debate forward. First, the President said he would work with Congress to reform Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the provision of law that the Administration cites as authority to collect all telephone records of American citizens. EPIC has challenged this interpretation of the law in a case currently pending before the US Supreme Court. The President said he would work with Congress to "put in place greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority." Second, the President said he would work to improve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews intelligence-gathering activities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The President said he would support the establishment of an "independent voice in appropriate cases" that can challenge the government's position in an adversarial process. Third, the President said he would support greater transparency of the programs run by the intelligence community; the establishment of a website; and the designation of a chief privacy officer at the National Security Agency. In 2010 comments to the FISA Court, EPIC proposed the creation of a website to provide more information about the intelligence community's activities, and recommended the routine publication of the court's opinions and more extensive reporting on the court's activities, including an annual report. Fourth, the President said he would form "a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies." The President said the group would provide an interim report in 60 days and a final debate by the end of 2013 so that the Administration can move forward "with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy." The President closed his remarks by stating, "[W]e're going to resolve our differences . . . through vigorous public debate, guided by our Constitution, with reverence for our history as a nation of laws, and with respect for the facts." President Obama: Remarks at Press Conference re: NSA (Aug. 9, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC, US No. 13-58 (Jul. 11, 2013) EPIC: House Testimony on FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (May 31, 2012) EPIC: Comments on "Proposed Amended FISC Rules" (Oct. 4, 2010) ======================================================================== [3] Administration Argues NSA Domestic Surveillance is Lawful; President Supports FISA Court Adversary ======================================================================== The Obama Administration has released a white paper outlining the legal arguments for why the USA PATRIOT Act's Section 215 authorizes the NSA to collect the metadata on all Americans' telephone records. The document argues that if only a few records turn out to be "relevant" to an investigation, then the NSA can collect every record in the database, but the White House lacks strong legal authority for this novel proposition. "[C]ourts have held that the relevance standard permits requests for the production of entire repositories of records, even when any particular record is unlikely to directly bear on the matter being investigated, because searching the entire repository is the only feasible means to locate the critical documents," the paper says. None of the cases the government cites, however, authorized data collection on the same scale as the NSA's telephone surveillance program. Each of the government's cited authorities involved a pre-existing, targeted investigation of a single entity, not the prospective collection of every telephone record of every American. The government also released an NSA memo discussing the agency's role in the Intelligence Community and its surveillance programs. The agency represents that it "touches" roughly 29 petabytes per day of Internet traffic. The document discusses the NSA's authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act, and executive orders. NSA serves the Intelligence Community "by engaging in the collection of 'signals intelligence,' which, quite literally, is the production of foreign intelligence through the collection, processing, and analysis of communications or other data, passed or accessible by radio, wire, or other electromagnetic means." The memo also addresses the NSA's collaboration with corporations and foreign governments. At an August 9 press conference, President Obama outlined proposals that would address some, but not all, problems with the domestic surveillance programs. He supported the appointment of a special advocate to argue in favor of civil liberties before the FISA Court. "[T]o build greater confidence, I think we should consider some additional changes to the [FISA Court]," he said. "One of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic surveillance only hears one side of the story, may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty." Nevertheless, the President stood by the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' communications data. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also recently released the "Primary Order" from the FISA Court, which describes the scope of the NSA's data analysis for the telephone surveillance program. The order details the procedures the NSA is expected to follow when reviewing data, but is heavily redacted, for example: ""The specifics of the automated query process, as described in the [redacted] Declaration, are as follows: [three paragraphs redacted]." The order does not include any legal analysis from the court about how the surveillance laws should be applied in practice. The government simultaneously released past reports on the NSA's domestic surveillance programs. The White House: White Paper on NSA Telephony Metadata (Aug. 9, 2013) NSA: "Missions, Authorities, Oversight and Partnerships" (Aug. 9, 2013) C-SPAN: Pres. Obama's Press Conference on Surveillance (Aug. 9, 2013) ODNI: Primary Order from the FISA Court (Apr. 25, 2013) ODNI: Press Release on Past NSA Surveillance Programs (Jul. 31, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance ======================================================================== [4] TSA Conducts Warrantless Searches Outside of Airports ======================================================================== The Transportation Security Administration has expanded the "Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response" (VIPR) program to perform warrantless searches at various locations, including festivals, sporting events, and bus stations. The VIPR teams are intended to enhance "deterrence and detection," but their effectiveness has been called into question. A 2012 US House of Representatives report on the TSA highlighted the lack of performance metrics for expensive programs like VIPR. According to the report, the VIPR program, which began in 2005 and currently consists of 37 VIPR teams and a $100 million budget, still lacks adequate performance metrics, despite the fact that the "TSA agreed that performance measures needed to be developed for VIPR teams, and pledged to develop such metrics, including measuring interagency collaboration and stakeholder views on the effectiveness of VIPR teams." The report also notes that the lack of performance metrics for an expensive TSA program is not unique to the VIPR program. Members of Congress have opposed the VIPR searches and called for the program's end. Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced the "Freedom to Travel Act of 2013" in June. The bill would eliminate the VIPR teams and searches by the TSA outside of airports. In 2012, EPIC prevailed in a lawsuit against the TSA that revealed the agency's plan to deploy body scanners outside airports, including at bus and train stations. In 2011, EPIC also prevailed in a challenge the use of x-ray body scanners in airports. As a result, TSA had to perform a public rulemaking on the use of body scanners, and has removed the revealing backscatter machines from airports. TSA: "Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response" (VIPR) US House: "Rebuilding TSA into a Smarter, Leaner Organization" (Sep. 2012) Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) "Freedom of Travel Act of 2013" (Jun. 28, 2013) GAO: Report on US Security Programs (Mar. 2012) EPIC: EPIC v. DHS Order (Sep. 9, 2012) ======================================================================== [5] Rotenberg: 'Progress at the White House But Surveillance is Still Unlawful' ======================================================================== President Obama should be credited for the concrete proposals he put forward August 9 to address public concerns about the scope of the NSA's surveillance programs. After first trying to assure the American public that "we are not listening in on everyone's phone calls," the President began the real work of reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, a broken legal framework in clear need of repair. Many of the President's proposals reflected recommendations that EPIC and others have advocated in testimony before Congress and in comments directly to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Disregarding the White House's willingness to take on board these recommendations would be counterproductive. Specifically, the publication of FISC opinions, the appointment of a public interest advocate to challenge the government's case before the FISC, and more routine public reporting about the scope of the FISC's activities would do much to strengthen oversight and restore public trust. Still, it must be said clearly and directly that the NSA's current surveillance activities - the domestic phone record collection program in particular - are unlawful and must be suspended. This is the basis of EPIC's challenge to the US Supreme Court and we believe that if the Court agrees to hear our case we will prevail on the central legal issue. It simply cannot be the case that all of the records of all of the telephone customers in the US are "relevant" to an "authorized investigation" by the Department of Justice. No act of Congress provided such expansive data collection authority. The Justice Department finally has put forward its justification for this interpretation of law. But much like the defense of the George W. Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program, the case is not persuasive - and one more reason why the Supreme Court should resolve this dispute. The President's speech also did not go far enough to address the legitimate concerns of non-US citizens over the NSA's surveillance practices, or the uneasy alliance between the US government and US Internet firms. It is hardly reassuring to those outside of the US to be told repeatedly that the legality of the US surveillance activities are measured solely by their impact on US citizens. Even acknowledging that most countries engage in surveillance and that countries have legitimate national security interests, democratic governments still must provide a legal basis for their actions against others. And it is not too much to expect that the United States would recognize, as other countries have also, that privacy is a fundamental human right that can unite countries rather than set them apart. In pursuing the dialogue over surveillance, the President likes to remind his audience that the US has established important systems of oversight and can afford a vigorous public debate. That is true, and last week the President's statements lent further support to the proposition. But there is more that needs to be done. A process is now underway. Leaders in both parties must now demonstrate their commitment to a security policy that is bounded both by the Constitution and the rule of law. -- Marc Rotenberg ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== EPIC Submits Eighth Petition to NSA to Suspend Domestic Surveillance EPIC, joined by over 3,000 members of the public, leading privacy experts, and journalists, has petitioned the National Security Agency for the eighth time, urging the suspension of the NSA domestic surveillance program pending public comments. EPIC first petitioned the agency on June 17, 2013. Because the NSA has failed to respond, EPIC has renewed the petition on a weekly basis. EPIC's petition states, "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." The petition further 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." By law, the NSA is required to respond. EPIC intends to renew its request for a public rulemaking each week until the NSA responds. EPIC: NSA Petition (June 17, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance Court Requires Driver Data Resellers to 'Exercise Reasonable Care' The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled in Gordon v. Softech Intl. that under the Driver Privacy Protection Act data brokers may be liable for the use of personal information that they obtain from DMVs and then sell to others. "Based on the language of the statute, its structure, and its legislative history, we conclude that the DPPA imposes a duty on resellers to exercise reasonable care in responding to requests for personal information drawn from motor vehicle records," the federal appeals court announced. The court cited the sensitivity of the personal information available through motor vehicle records, including social security numbers, medical or disability information, and home addresses. In reversing the lower court's decision, the appeals court said, "It is not enough for a reseller to simply provide a 'drop down list' of permissible purposes." EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case, arguing that "Strict liability for the improper sale of driver records is necessary to satisfy the statutory purpose of the DPPA" and to "ensure that resellers take precautions to avoid impermissible uses" of sensitive personal data. Second Circuit Court: Decision in Gordon v. Softech (Jul. 31, 2013) EPIC: Gordon v. Softech Int'l, Inc. EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Gordon v. Softech (Jun. 15, 2012) EPIC: Driver Privacy Protection Act National Institutes of Health Protects Genetic Privacy of HeLa Cells The National Institutes of Health has agreed to safeguard Henrietta Lacks' family genetic privacy while still allowing research on the famous HeLa cells. During her fight against an aggressive form of cervical cancer in the 1950s, Henrietta Lacks' cells were given to scientists, without her consent, for experimentation because of their ability to replicate in a lab setting. Her cells are still used today for scientific research. In 2012, EPIC submitted comments to the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing for stronger privacy protections for genetic data. In early 2013, EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief with the US Supreme Court in the case Maryland v. King, arguing for limited law enforcement access to DNA. NIH: Press Release on HeLa Genome Agreement (Aug. 7, 2013) Wellcome UK: Background on HeLa Cells EPIC: Comments to DHHS on Genetic Data Privacy (May 25, 2012) EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Maryland v. King (Feb. 1, 2013) EPIC: Maryland v. King EPIC: Genetic Privacy EPIC Supports International Principles for Privacy Protection EPIC has joined with nearly 200 leading human rights organizations and privacy experts in support of the "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance." The Principles were adopted in response to growing concern over the surveillance of Internet communications by governments and private companies. Among the key principles in the framework document are Necessity, Adequacy, Proportionality, Competent Judicial Authority, Due Process, User Notification, Transparency, Public Oversight, and Safeguards Against Illegitimate Access. EPIC is a consistent supporter of EU and international privacy laws and frameworks. "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance" (Jul. 10, 2013) EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== "Video: "Common Core Moms discuss EPIC Lawsuit against the Department of Education [Interview with EPIC Administrative Law Counsel Khaliah Barnes]." Constitution Party of Florida, August 3, 2013. lawsuit-against-the-department-of-education/ "T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security." The New York Times, August 5, 2013. airport-security.html?hp&_r=0 WBUR's "On Point": "NSA Chief Speaks At Black Hat [Interview with EPIC Appellate Advocacy Counsel Alan Butler." August 1, 2013. "Diane Ravitch: 3 Dubious Uses of Technology in Schools." Scientific American, July 31, 2013. dubious-uses-technology-in-schools "Feds asked to investigate privacy issues in rapper app." Consumer Affairs, July 30, 2013. privacy-issues-in-rapper-app-073013.html For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================== [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Rise of the Warrior Cop' ======================================================================== "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces," Radley Balko The power behind Radley Balko's new book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop," lies in its narratives. In story after horrific story, Balko fills in the history of US law enforcement from the ratification of the Constitution through the present day. Rather than focus on any single piece of the story, however, Balko's narrative shifts from the decision-makers in Washington, DC, to the results of those decisions, played out in raids, stand-offs, and shifts in policy at police departments throughout the country. "Warrior Cop" first introduces us to the Third and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution, the primary limits on police power. Balko then uses the Amendments to introduce to the Castle Doctrine, the general warrant, and the ill-advised Cushing Doctrine, which allowed the President to deploy military troops to enforce federal law, and which was mostly overturned by a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act. Balko then wades through a history of US policing itself, briefly touching on the period between the Colonial era and the 1960s, then using the next 250 pages as an in-depth tour of police history from the 1960s through November 2012. This time period follows the development, and wide-scale use, of SWAT teams, the policies that spurned and perpetuated the drug wars, and the hyper-militarization of local police departments through the use of military training and equipment. Balko ends his book with ideas for reform, including the need to re-evaluate the drug war, halt "mission creep" and the expansion of SWAT teams, and increase transparency and accountability in enforcement practices. Though the book occasionally suffers from a complicated storyline that could be helped by a tighter narrative, Balko succeeds in delivering a brilliantly detailed treatise on the history of American law enforcement. Most startling, perhaps, is how Balko demonstrates the erosion of constitutional rights, particularly how law enforcement apparatus approaches the Fourth Amendment as a hindrance to be overcome; 'Warrior Cop' includes many stories of "raids" on the homes of innocent Americans, either due error or misinformation. The single hole in Balko's story is his underrepresentation of the increasing role played by surveillance equipment. Throughout 'Warrior Cop,' Balko explains how local police departments wind up in possession of military equipment: tanks, armor, grenade launchers, and other gear. But some equipment isn't only for combat; Balko does discuss, at one point, the proliferation of drones as tools for police surveillance, particularly how drones are being deployed in 90% of the largest US largest cities in America, and that they are not infallible: one crashed into a DHS-funded armored personnel carrier. 'Rise of the Warrior Cop' is well-researched, well-written, and attention-grabbing, Balko succeeds in both educating and entertaining the reader; I found myself reading passages out loud to those around me, in awe and, often, in disgust. As Balko is careful to note, this is not an anti-cop polemic, but a study that highlights the failures of the law enforcement system as a whole "There's been barely any opposition or concern from anyone in Congress, any governor, or any mayor of a sizable city," says Balko. "That, more than anything, is what needs to change." -- Amie Stepanovich ====================================== 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 20.16------------------------
Electronic Privacy Information Center - Contact Info