EPIC Alert 22.06

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 22.06 March 31, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_22.06.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/support ========================================================================= Table of Contents ========================================================================= [1] EPIC Pursues FOIA Request about FTC Google Investigation [2] Pew Survey: 57% of Americans Report That Government Surveillance of US Citizens Is 'Unacceptable' [3] Most US Voters Want 'Right to Be Forgotten' [4] EPIC Publishes 2015 FOIA Gallery [5] EPIC Files Comments with FTC on Merger Review and Consumer Privacy [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Intellectual Privacy' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ========================================================================= [1] EPIC Pursues FOIA Request about FTC Google Investigation ========================================================================= EPIC has filed a FOIA request with the Federal Trade Commission, seeking the two reports prepared by agency staff during the 2012 Google antitrust investigation. The Wall Street Journal has obtained a report revealing that the Commission ignored recommendations to reform Google's anticompetitive practices. According to the newspaper, the agency's Bureau of Competition wrote a 160-page staff report for the Commissioners detailing four areas of anti-competitive concern and concluding that Google was engaging in illegal practices in three of those areas and very close to illegal conduct in the fourth area. The Journal, however, has yet to make the documents available to the public. According to the Wall Street Journal, the staff report read, "Google's conduct has resulted - and will result - in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets. Google has strengthened its monopolies over search and search advertising through anticompetitive means, and has forestalled competitors' and would-be competitors' ability to challenge those monopolies, and this will have lasting negative effects on consumer welfare." Nevertheless, the Commission voted unanimously to close the Google investigation in January 2013. "The Commission may have been influenced by a second sealed staff report, written by the agency's Bureau of Economics, which apparently argued against pursuing a lawsuit," says EPIC's FOIA request. "As a consequence, Google's dominance of the Internet, access to knowledge, and data concerning consumer's private lives both online and in the home has increased." After the FTC closed the Google investigation in 2013, EPIC made a FOIA request to the agency, asking it for any communications with the White House on the subject. The FTC replied that "no responsive documents" existed. EPIC: FOIA Request to FTC re: Google Inquiry (Mar. 24, 2015) https://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/FTC-Google-FOIA-Mar2015.PDF The Wall Street Journal: "Inside the US Antitrust Probe of Google" (Mar. 19, 2015) http://www.wsj.com/articleslinside-the-u-s-anlitrust-probe-of- google-1426793274 EPIC: Letter to FTC re: Google Search Preferences (Jun. 12, 2012) https://epic.org/privacy/EPIC-FTC-Google-Search-letter.pdf EPIC: Search Engine Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/search_engine/ ======================================================================== [2] Pew Survey: 57% of Americans Report That Government Surveillance of US Citizens Is 'Unacceptable' ======================================================================== The Pew Research Center has published a new report, "Americans' Privacy Strategies Post-Snowden". According to the Pew survey, 34% of Americans who know about the NSA's bulk collection of telephone records have taken "at least one step to hide or shield their information from the government." Fifty-seven percent said that it is unacceptable for the US government to monitor the communications of US citizens. At the same time, 54% believe it would be "somewhat" or "very" difficult to find "tools and strategies that would help them be more private" online. In 2013, EPIC petitioned the US Supreme Court to halt the NSA surveillance of domestic telephone calls. A 2014 Pew Research report, "Social Media and the 'Spiral of Silence,'" revealed that most social media users are afraid to talk about government surveillance on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. Users were more willing to share their views on government surveillance if they thought others shared the same view. Those who thought they held minority views were more likely to self-censor - an effect known as the "spiral of silence." EPIC maintains an Online Guide to Practical Privacy Tools and resources on Public Opinion and Privacy. In 2012, EPIC obtained FOIA documents revealing that the Department of Homeland Security monitored social media for political dissent. The documents indicated that DHS analysts were specifically instructed to look for criticism of the agency, in contradiction to previous DHS' testimony about the program. EPIC recommended that the program be suspended because it exceeded the agency's authority and chilled First Amendment activity. A subsequent Congressional hearing led the DHS to cancel the program. Pew: "Americans' Privacy Strategies Post-Snowden" (Mar. 16, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-pew-privacy.html Pew: "Social Media and the 'Spiral of Silence'" (Aug. 26, 2014) https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/ EPIC: EPIC Online Guide to Practical Privacy Tools https://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/survey/ EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/ EPIC: EPIC v. DHS: Media Monitoring https://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/ ========================================================================= [3] Most US Voters Want 'Right to Be Forgotten' ========================================================================= According to a new survey, nine of 10 US voters want the right to delete links to personal information. The Benenson Strategy Group report reveals that 88% of the more than 1000 voters polled say they would support a US law that permits Internet users to ask search companies, such as Google, to remove links to certain personal information. Two-thirds of voters polled agreed that "The federal government has gone too far when it comes to collecting information about Americans from technology companies. Congress has to do more to protect Americans' privacy rights and not require tech companies to share so much information with law enforcement." Eighty-one percent also said agreed that "Except in extreme cases, such as terrorism suspects, tech companies should work to protect customers' privacy and alert US citizens as soon as possible if their personal information has been shared with the government or a law enforcement agency." In May 2014 the European Union High Court established the "right to be forgotten" as fundamental and protected by the EU Constitution. EU citizens now may require search companies to remove personal information that is inadequate, irrelevant or inaccurate. After the Court's ruling, Google maintained that it need only remove incomplete and obsolete information about a person when requested for European domains, rather than all domains. EPIC has argued that this position is unfounded. The Benenson survey bolsters the findings of a previous survey, which found that 61% of Americans polled supported the right to be forgotten. EPIC has argued that the right to be forgotten should be established in the US. Benenson Group: Survey on 'Right to Be Forgotten' (Mar. 19, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-forgotten-survey.html USA Today: "Google's position makes no sense," Op-Ed by EPIC President Marc Rotenberg on the "Right to Be Forgotten" (Jan. 22, 2015) http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/22/google-eu- electronic-privacy-information-center-editorials-debates/22186841/ EPIC: Google v. Spain https://epic.org/privacy/right-to-be-forgotten/ EPIC: International Privacy Standards: https://epic.org/privacy/intl/ EU: Fact Sheet on Right to Be Forgotten http://epic.org/redirect/032715-forgotten-factsheet.html EPIC: Expungement https://epic.org/privacy/expungement/ ======================================================================== [4] EPIC Publishes 2015 FOIA Gallery ========================================================================= In celebration of Sunshine Week, EPIC has created a "2015 FOIA Gallery" to showcase significant open government cases from the past year. Beginning in 2001, EPIC has published the annual FOIA Gallery to highlight major successes in using the FOIA to promote open government and transparency. Over the past year, EPIC has bolstered its record as an open government champion. After five years of litigation, EPIC obtained Presidential Directive NSPD-54, the foundational legal document for US cybersecurity policy. NSPD-54 describes government efforts to enlist private sector companies, increasingly monitor Internet activity, and develop offensive cybersecurity capability. Through another FOIA case, EPIC revealed details of a DHS license plate reader program and forced the agency to revise privacy guidelines and safeguards. EPIC's other FOIA successes include documents about the Army's surveillance blimps over Washington, DC; the NSA's domestic surveillance authority; the FBI's formerly secret surveillance reports, and the CIA's surveillance of Congress. The FOIA Gallery also highlights significant court judgments in cases against the FBI concerning the Next Generation Identification system and the "Stingray" cellphone surveillance technique. An introduction to the Freedom of Information Act and EPIC's recent FOIA cases are available at https://epic.org/foia/gallery/2015/. EPIC: FOIA Gallery 2015 https://epic.org/foia/gallery/2015/ Sunshine Week http://www.sunshineweek.org/ EPIC: FOIA Cases https://epic.org/foia/ EPIC: EPIC v. NSA (NSPD-54) https://epic.org/foia/nsa/nspd-54/appeal/ EPIC: EPIC FOIA: Automated License Plate Readers (FBI) https://epic.org/foia/fbi/lpr/default.html EPIC: EPIC v. Army - Surveillance Blimps https://epic.org/foia/army/ EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ - Pen Register Reports http://epic.org/foia/doj/pen-reg-trap-trace/ ========================================================================= [5] EPIC Files Comments with FTC on Merger Review and Consumer Privacy ========================================================================= EPIC, along with 26 technical experts and legal scholars, has submitted extensive comments for the FTC's review of the corporate merger remedy process. The Commission requested public comments on a proposed study "to assess the effectiveness of the Commission's policies and practices regarding remedial orders where the Commission has permitted a merger but required a divestiture or other remedy." EPIC's comments urge the FTC to "to ensure that the study evaluates certain FTC's merger decisions concerning consumer privacy where the Commission recognized important competitive concerns but failed to impose a remedy." EPIC also pressed the Commission to consider the consumer privacy risks resulting from the merger of big data firms. "There is growing recognition that mergers among companies built upon the collection of user data have far-reaching consequences for consumer privacy. Thus, when firm merges, consumer privacy suffers," EPIC wrote. However, EPIC explained, "the FTC has chosen to ignore non-price factors in assessing mergers of data aggregators. Further, in spite of this growing consensus, the FTC has failed to conduct a single review of data aggregators post-merger. The examples of the AOL/Time Warner, DoubleClick/Abacus, Google/DoubleClick and Facebook/WhatsApp mergers demonstrate the serious anticompetitive effects of data collection mergers without regulatory oversight." The comments detailed EPIC's efforts, over 15 years, to warn the FTC about these mergers. "In every instance, it was clear that the practical consequence of the merger would be to reduce the privacy protections for consumers and expose individuals to enhanced tracking and profiling," EPIC explained. "The failure of the Federal Trade Commission to take this into account during merger review is one of the main reasons consumer privacy in the United States has diminished significantly over the last 15 years." EPIC urged the FTC to assess mergers' competitive and privacy impacts, and to enforce privacy commitments prior to granting merger approval. "The FTC should investigate proposed mergers of data aggregators with regard to the companies' ability to dominate the search market and pose unchallenged privacy threats to consumers. Following mergers of data aggregators, the FTC should conduct post- merger reviews to assess whether the companies have honored their commitments, whether formal or informal, to protect the privacy of the users of their services from whom they have obtained detailed, personal information," EPIC concluded. EPIC: Comments to FTC re: Remedy Study (Mar. 17, 2015) https://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/Merger-Remedy-3-17.pdf Federal Register: Comment Request on Merger Study (Jan. 16, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-register-merger.html EPIC: DoubleClick/Abacus Merger https://epic.org/privacy/doubletrouble/ EPIC: Google/DoubleClick Merger https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/ EPIC: AOL/Time Warner Merger http://epic.org/redirect/032715-aol-time-warner-merger.html EPIC: In re: WhatsApp https://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/whatsapp/ ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== EPIC Comments on Maryland Drone Bill In a prepared statement for a hearing on a bill to limit drone surveillance, EPIC urged Maryland state legislatures to add additional privacy protections. The bill prohibits drone surveillance of "specifically targeted individuals or private property," except where a valid search warrant is obtained or explicit consent is given. EPIC recommended that the bill specifically limit police drone surveillance of First Amendment-protected activities, require use and data limitations and include additional transparency and accountability measures. EPIC previously petitioned the FAA to establish clear privacy guidelines for commercial drones and urged Congress to establish privacy safeguards to limit drone surveillance. EPIC: Statement to MD Legislature re: Drone Bill (Mar. 17, 2015) http://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPIC-Statement-House-Bill-620.pdf State of MD: Text of Drone Bill (HB 620) (Feb. 12, 2015) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0620F.pdf EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Feb. 24, 2012) https://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf EPIC: Congressional Testimony re: Drone Privacy (Mar. 20, 2013) http://epic.org/redirect/032913-epic-drone-testimony.html EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones https://epic.org/privacy/drones/ Advisory Committee Approves Rules to Expand Police Hacking Authority According to a news report, a committee of the Federal Judicial Conference has voted to approve changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the revised rule, judges could issue "remote access" warrants authorizing law enforcement to search computers remotely, even when the target is outside the court's jurisdiction. In 2014 EPIC criticized the proposal in a statement presented by EPIC Senior Counsel Alan Butler, arguing that the rules would not provide adequate notice as required under the Fourth Amendment. EPIC previously filed a "friend of the court" brief on a similar issue, the delivery of warrants via facsimile. The advisory committee's decision is only one of several steps before the change is adopted by the judiciary. National Journal: "FBI's Plan to Expand Hacking Power Advances Despite Privacy Fears" (Mar. 16, 2015) http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/fbi-s-plan-to-expand-hacking- power-advances-despite-privacy-fears-20150316 US Courts: Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules (Aug. 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-rules-amendment.html EPIC: Statement and Testimony on Rule 41 (Nov. 5, 2014) http://epic.org/redirect/111714-epic-41-testimony.html EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in US v. Bach (2002) https://epic.org/privacy/bach/brief.pdf Senate Committee Approves Cyber Surveillance Bill In a closed-door meeting, the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved the "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015." The bill would allow the government to obtain user information from private companies without judicial oversight, and companies to receive immunity for their disregard of existing privacy law. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who opposed the measure, stated, "If information-sharing legislation does not include adequate privacy protections then that's not a cybersecurity bill - it's a surveillance bill by another name." In 2014, EPIC won a five-year court battle against the NSA for NSPD 54 - the foundational legal document for US cybersecurity policies. The Directive reveals the government's long- standing interest in enlisting private-sector companies to monitor user activity. openthegovernment.org: Text of Draft Cybersecurity Bill (Mar. 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-cyber-bill-draft.html Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Statement Against Cyber Bill (Mar. 12, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-wyden-statement.html EPIC: Text of NSPD-54 (Jan. 8, 2008) https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/EPIC-FOIA-NSPD54.pdf EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/ United Nations To Create Special Rapporteur on Right to Privacy The UN Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution on The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age that will lead to the selection of an independent expert on privacy. According to the resolution, the special "rapporteur" will have a broad mandate to assess developments, make recommendations and promote the right to privacy worldwide. EPIC joined with 90 other NGOs in support of the resolution. EPIC also recently expressed support for encryption and anonymity in a letter to another UN Rapporteur. UN HR Council: Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (Dec. 2014) https://epic.org/misc/The-right-to privacy-in-the-digital-age.pdf Human Rights Watch: Letter to UN on Rapporteur (Mar. 13, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-rapporteur-letter.html EPIC: Letter to UN Rapporteur re: Encryption (Feb. 10, 2015) https://epic.org/misc/EPIC-UNCHR-ltr-02-2015.pdf European Court Hears Case Challenging 'Safe Harbor,' NSA Spying The Court of Justice for the European Union heard arguments in Maximilian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, a case filed in Ireland following the revelations of the NSA PRISM program. At issue is whether the disclosure of EU citizens' data to the NSA by Facebook and other Internet companies violates the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and whether the EU-US "Safe Harbor" agreement provides "adequate" data protection. A decision is likely sometime in 2015. Schrems is the recipient of the 2013 EPIC International Privacy Champion Award. EU Court of Justice: Schrems v. EU DP Commissioner (Mar. 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/032715-schrems-v-eu.html EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ - PRISM https://epic.org/foia/doj/olc/prism/ EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive https://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html EPIC: Homepage Item on Max Schrems (Jan. 24, 2013) https://epic.org/2013/01/epic-gives-2013-privacy-champi.html ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== "Bankrupt RadioShack wants to sell off user data. But the bigger risk is if a Facebook or Google goes bust." The Washington Post, Mar. 26, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/26/ bankrupt-radioshack-wants-to-sell-off-user-data-but-the-bigger- risk-is-if-a-facebook-or-google-goes-bust/ "Study: Some Popular Android Apps Tracking User Location Once Every Three Minutes." Consumerist, Mar. 24, 2015. http://consumerist.com/2015/03/24/study-some-popular-android-apps- tracking-user-location-once-every-three-minutes/ "​Representatives Propose Legislation to Protect Student Data Privacy." EdSurge, Mar. 23, 2015. https://www.edsurge.com/n/2015-03-23-representatives-propose- legislation-to-protect-student-data-privacy "Apps Track Users — Once Every 3 Minutes." The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 23, 2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/apps-track-usersonce-every-3-minutes- 1427166955 "Privacy Bill May Fail Student Data Protection." US News & World Report, Mar. 23, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/23/privacy-bill-may- fail-student-data-protection "Bipartisan student data privacy bill hits House." The Hill, Mar. 23, 2015. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/236588-bipartisan-student- data-privacy-bill-hits-house "Bill Would Limit Use of Student Data." The New York Times, Mar. 22, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/technology/bill-would-limit-use- of-student-data.html "Rule 41 Change Could Allow FBI To Get Warrants To Remotely Search Suspects' Computers Without Notice." International Business Times, Mar. 21, 2015. http://www.ibtimes.com/rule-41-change-could-allow-fbi-get- warrants-remotely-search-suspects-computers-1854894 "'Citizens under surveillance' - Targets and suspects." Politis.fr, Mar. 19, 2015. http://www.politis.fr/Citoyens-sous-surveillance-Des,30478.html "The DOJ Is Sneaking in a Policy That'd Crap All Over the 4th Amendment." Gizmodo, Mar. 19, 2015. http://gizmodo.com/the-doj-is-sneaking-in-a-policy-thatd-crap-all- over-the-1692253192 "15 Years of FTC Failure to Factor Privacy Into Merger Reviews." The Huffington Post, Mar. 19, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/15-years-of-ftc- failure-t_b_6901670.html "Watchdog Says FTC Should Weigh Privacy In Mergers." Law 360, Mar. 18, 2015. http://www.law360.com/privacy/articles/633144/watchdog-says-ftc- should-weigh-privacy-in-mergers "Is your DMV data safeguarded properly?" USA Today, Mar. 17, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/17/dmv-data- safeguarded/24886267/ "Survey: Surveillance Is Fine as Long as It's Not on Me." TechNewsWorld, Mar. 16, 2015. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/81830.html "Smartphones help many connect, but also make it easier to be tracked." The Attleboro [MA] Sun Chronicle, Mar. 16, 2015. http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/smartphones-help- many-connect-but-also-make-it-easier-to/article_6948012a-e21c-5c04- aff6-b662d77fb30d.html "Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets." ECT News Network, Mar. 13, 2015. http://www.ectnews.com/story/81822.html "US at odds with Google on computer search-warrant proposal." AP, Mar. 13, 2015. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1eb2cf2124284bd5883ee05f2b7e36ca/ odds-google-us-seeks-new-rule-computer-access For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html ======================================================================= [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Intellectual Privacy' ======================================================================= "Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age," Neil Richards http://amzn.to/1OETd8m In few domains are the claims for privacy stronger than in the realm of intellectual freedom. Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote in an opinion for the Supreme Court, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." It is a remarkable observation, tying together freedom of expression and privacy, two values that are often juxtaposed. Privacy law professor Neil Richard's thoughtful and carefully researched "Intellectual Privacy" explores the space where the First Amendment and privacy collide. His goal is to set a new course for safeguarding civil liberties in the digital world, and the book is filled with a rich historical discussion of several key cases that shaped both privacy and the First Amendment. Richards's argument for the coexistence of privacy and free expression draws not only on case law but also on theoretical literature and commentary. Richards points to the value of private communications, discussion and reflection that make possible a robust public sphere of debate. Richards also discusses the library profession's important role in safeguarding intellectual freedom. This particular construct bears emphasis: There are few models of intellectual freedom more robust than the library, which simultaneously seeks to maximize the transfer of information to library patrons while minimizing the collection of information about them. Libraries know first-hand from the McCarthy Era and later the Patriot Act the dangers of keeping excessive data. This is why libraries developed Privacy Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of personally identifiable information. And this is also why the Google Books model raised such concern for the future of intellectual privacy: The cost that Google imposed on the very institutions that protect their patrons' privacy was the routine collection of their viewing habits. If there is an off-key note in Richards's analysis it is in his discussion of the famous Brandeis article on The Right to Privacy. Richards argues, unnecessarily in my view, that the article reflects an earlier view of privacy not easily reconciled with a robust First Amendment. From this perspective, he says, the article is a late 19th-century artifact, not the cornerstone of modern privacy law. But Brandeis was well aware of competing First Amendment interests when he wrote the article. The first objection he considered to the right he was creating was the publication of any "matter which is of public or general interest." Brandeis made a critical distinction between public and private affairs that has carried forward not only in First Amendment law but also in the practices of news organizations. Few editors today would likely defend an expose about a private person's private life as they might the shenanigans of a person running for public office. Brandeis' argument was not only influential - it was intuitive. As an aside, I would also disagree with the conventional wisdom that the Supreme Court largely embraced Brandeis's views in the Katz opinion. The formulation of privacy that Brandeis set out in the famous dissent was far more robust than the circular construct that Court ultimately adopted in Katz. Brandeis did not simply suggest a warrant requirement in the original wiretapping case but an actual prohibition on the conduct. In other words, Brandeis (old or new) was simultaneously a greater free speech and privacy advocate than Richards suggests. How do we understand this outcome? Part of the answer is found in Richards's own contribution: Privacy and freedom of expression rarely exist in a zero- sum arrangement. Part of the answer is also found in Brandeis's preference for the rights of the citizen against the corporation. Thus we could imagine Brandeis's support for such modern privacy claims as "the Right to Be Forgotten" not merely as reconciling free speech and privacy claims, but also understanding that the modern democratic state must safeguard the rights of the citizen first. Remarkably, that decision of the European Court, which has been widely chastised in the United States, distinguished between the rights of news organizations and the obligations of commercial search providers. In the EU Court's views, privacy and free expression are aligned. Perhaps that should not surprise us. Justice Marshall's words appear not only in in Stanley v. Georgia, a cornerstone case for intellectual freedom in the United States, but also etched into the walls of the Newseum in Washington, DC. Even press organizations have come to understand the central role of privacy in modern American life. Justice Brandeis would have approved. -- Marc Rotenberg =================================== EPIC Bookstore =================================== "Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions," edited by Marc Rotenberg, Julia Horwitz and Jeramie Scott. The New Press (May 2015). Price: $25.95. http://epic.org/buy-privacy-modern-age The threats to privacy are well known: The National Security Agency tracks our phone calls; Google records where we go online and how we set our thermostats; Facebook changes our privacy settings when it wishes; Target gets hacked and loses control of our credit card information; our medical records are available for sale to strangers; our children are fingerprinted and their every test score saved for posterity; and small robots patrol our schoolyards while drones may soon fill our skies. The contributors to this anthology don't simply describe these problems or warn about the loss of privacy—they propose solutions. They look closely at business practices, public policy, and technology design and ask, "Should this continue? Is there a better approach?" They take seriously the dictum of Thomas Edison: "What one creates with his hand, he should control with his head." It's a new approach to the privacy debate, one that assumes privacy is worth protecting, that there are solutions to be found, and that the future is not yet known. This volume will be an essential reference for policy makers and researchers, journalists and scholars, and others looking for answers to one of the biggest challenges of our modern day. The premise is clear: There's a problem — let's find a solution. Contributors include: Steven Aftergood, Ross Anderson, Christine L. Borgman (coauthored with Kent Wada and James F. Davis), Ryan Calo, Danielle Citron, Simon Davies, A. Michael Froomkin, Deborah Hurley, Kristina Irion, Jeff Jonas, Harry Lewis, Anna Lysyanskaya, Gary T. Marx, Aleecia M. McDonald, Dr. Pablo G. Molina, Peter G. Neumann, Helen Nissenbaum, Frank Pasquale, Dr. Deborah Peel, MD, Stephanie E. Perrin, Marc Rotenberg, Pamela Samuelson, Bruce Schneier, and Christopher Wolf. ================================== "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. http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/ 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. 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, and constitutional values 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: http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes ======================================================================= [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= Launch of EPIC's "Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions" htttp://www.epic.org/privacy-book/ - Annapolis Book Festival and C-Span Book TV, Annapolis MD (April 25) - Harvard University, Cambridge MA (May 6) - National Constitution Center, Philadelphia PA (May 26) - Washington, DC (June 2) Early praise for "Privacy in The Modern Age": "Never before has the thorough examination of the threats to American privacy been so crucial. Thank you to EPIC for inspired recommendations to help ensure our right to privacy remains a time-honored value in our interconnected world." —Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) "Original insights into the most critical privacy, data protection, and surveillance concerns of our time." —Anita Allen "A fascinating overview of current challenges for our privacy and how best to counter them." — Peter Hustinx "EPIC has become one of America's most vigilant and respected defenders of privacy in the modern age. This invaluable collection of essays shows why." —Jeffrey Rosen "The Electronic Privacy Information Center is on the front lines of the most important civil liberties issues of our age." —Bruce Schneier "EPIC sets out innovative solutions to many of our biggest civil liberties challenges." —Nadine Strossen "Privacy in the Modern Age continues EPIC's courageous work as a standard-bearer of democratic values." —Shoshana Zuboff "Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions." Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Vancouver, BC, Mar. 27, 2015. For More Information: http://www.nji-inm.ca/. The 5th International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy. Georgetown Law Center, Washington DC, June 3 - 4, 2015. For More Information: www.healthprivacysummit.org. ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: http://facebook.com/epicprivacy http://epic.org/facebook http://twitter.com/epicprivacy 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.orgor write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). ======================================================================= Support 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/support 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. ======================================================================= 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 22.06------------------------

Share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
US Needs a Data Protection Agency
2020 Election Security