EPIC Alert 22.15

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 22.15 August 14, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_22.15.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/support ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Petitions Supreme Court re: Secret Cell Phone Shutdown Policy [2] EPIC, Coalition Urge FCC to End Call Record Data Retention [3] EPIC Pursues Lawsuit over Secret Government Profiling Program [4] EPIC Argues for Limitations on Governmental Digital Searches [5] EPIC v. DHS: Court Rules DHS Failed to Justify FOIA Withholdings [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Bookstore [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Petitions Supreme Court re: Secret Cell Phone Shutdown Policy ======================================================================= EPIC has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court in a long-running battle to obtain a secret government cell phone shutdown policy known as "Standard Operating Procedure 303." EPIC has pursued the Department of Homeland Security policy since a 2011 incident in which San Francisco BART officials suspended cell phone service during a peaceful protest against police brutality. The three-hour cellular disruption prevented everyone inside the transit stations from sending or receiving calls including to 911, text messages, emergency notifications and other transmissions. EPIC sued DHS to obtain SOP 303, which codifies "a shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crises." In November 2013, the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered DHS to release the policy, but a year later the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned the lower court's ruling. The DC Circuit ruled that DHS properly withheld SOP 303 under FOIA Exemption 7(F), which covers the release of records that could risk harm to "any individual." According to the court, because the term "any" has an "expansive meaning," the agency is not required to provide evidence that disclosure could harm "a particular individual who could be identified before the fact." EPIC's petition to the Supreme Court maintains that the Circuit Court's decision is "contrary to the intent of Congress, this Court's precedent, and this Court's specific guidance on statutory interpretation." EPIC argued that the court improperly "expanded the scope of 7(F) far beyond its original purpose and created what is, in effect, a categorical exemption for security-related procedures and other records." EPIC also contended that the DC Circuit's ruling was contrary to the Supreme Court's past cases on statutory interpretation. The government's response to EPIC's petition is due September 10, 2015. In the interim, DHS has released a new version of SOP 303 with previously unreleased information. EPIC: Petition to Supreme Court re: SOP 303 (Aug. 11, 2015) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/Cert-Petition.pdf EPIC: SOP 303 (redacted) https://epic.org//redirect/081415-sop-303-redacted.html DC Circuit Court: Opinion in EPIC v. DHS (Feb. 10, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/022715-dc-opinion-killswitch.html DC District Court: Opinion in EPIC v. DHS (Nov. 11, 2013) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/DCD-Order.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - SOP 303 https://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/ EPIC: Protestor Privacy and Free Expression Rights https://epic.org/privacy/protest/ ======================================================================= [2] EPIC, Coalition Urge FCC to End Call Record Data Retention ======================================================================= EPIC and a coalition of leading consumer rights, human rights and civil liberties organizations, along with members of EPIC's Advisory Board, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to end the agency's rule requiring mass retention of phone records. Currently, the FCC requires phone companies to retain sensitive information on all subscribers for 18 months, including name, address, telephone number, telephone number dialed, date, time,and call length. The call toll records currently retained are not specifically tailored or limited to a particular investigation. The coalition's letter explained that the program is inefficient and costly to telecommunications carriers. Many carriers initially objected to the data retention rule when it was first implemented in the 1980s, arguing that it imposed recordkeeping costs out of sync with the carriers' developing business models. Since phone billing methods have moved from an itemized list of charges to non-measured, bundled, and flat-rate service plans, some carriers now attempt to evade the requirement entirely, claiming that they do not keep the types of records identified by the Commission. The coalition also argued that the rule constitutes an invasion of caller privacy. "The FCC's data retention mandate implicates substantial privacy and civil liberties interests for millions of Americans," the group wrote. "Since 90% of American adults have a cell phone, this equates to sensitive data being retained for nearly every American adult, even when they are under no suspicion of wrongdoing." Furthermore, the coalition explained, the large number of high-profile data breaches in the last year illustrates the severity of the risks associated with data retention. The coalition has asked the FCC to open the existing rule to public comment "in light of its ineffectiveness and the corresponding privacy threats," or to repeal the program entirely. EPIC et al.: Coalition Letter to FCC re: Data Retention (Aug. 4, 2015) https://www.epic.org/privacy/fcc-data-retention-petition.pdf Federal Register: Retention of telephone toll records (2010) https://www.epic.org/redirect/081415-fed-register-2010-phones.html EPIC: Identity Theft https://epic.org/privacy/idtheft/ ======================================================================= [3] EPIC Pursues Lawsuit over Secret Government Profiling Program ======================================================================= EPIC has filed a reply brief in federal court, rebutting the US government's claim that it can withhold information about automated profiling. In the Freedom of Information Act case EPIC v. CBP, EPIC seeks documents about the "Analytical Framework for Intelligence," a program that incorporates personal information from government agencies, commercial data brokers and the Internet. The agency then uses secret analytic tools to assign "risk assessments" to travelers, including US citizens traveling solely within the United States. US Customs and Border Protection creates the risk assessments from the compiled personally identifiable information, including name, address, Social Security number, gender, nationality, race and biometric information. The agency's database also contains information generated by CBP, including "law enforcement or intelligence information regarding an individual" and "risk-based rules developed by analysts to assess and identify high-risk cargo, conveyances, or travelers that should be subject to further scrutiny or examination." EPIC submitted a FOIA request in 2014 for documents relating to the framework. After EPIC filed suit, the agency produced heavily redacted versions of the records, citing several FOIA exemptions including Exemption 7(E), which allows an agency to withhold certain records that contain law enforcement techniques or procedures. CBP's court filing argued that records containing screenshots of the framework would permit bad actors to gain access to the system. EPIC's most recent filing challenges that justification, contending that the agency's claim was completely "unsupported." EPIC v. CPB is part of EPIC's campaign for "algorithmic transparency" in automated decisions concerning individuals. EPIC: Reply Brief in EPIC v. CPB (Aug. 10, 2015) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/cbp/afi/24-EPIC-Reply-Supporting-CMSJ.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. CBP - Analytical Framework for Intelligence https://epic.org/foia/dhs/cbp/afi/ EPIC: Algorithmic Transparency https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/ EPIC: EPIC FOIA Cases https://epic.org/foia/ ======================================================================= [4] EPIC Argues for Limitations on Governmental Digital Searches ======================================================================= EPIC has submitted a "friend of the court" brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing for the existence of constitutional limits on government searches of electronic storage devices. EPIC has urged affirmance of the Second Circuit's decision in the case United States v. Ganias, which held that the government violated the Fourth Amendment by retaining and searching files seized years earlier, when they were not covered under warrant. The Second Circuit Court ruled in 2014 that the government violated Stavros Ganias' Fourth Amendment rights when it seized his personal computer records and retained them for more than two and a half years. The court held that the government may not "possess indefinitely" records that were beyond the scope of the original warrant while it looked for other evidence to search the files again. The government appealed, and the court decided to rehear the case "en banc." Oral argument will be held September 30, 2015. EPIC's brief argued that data minimization practices should be followed for electronic searches, particularly after the US Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California. "Sensitive personal information should not be subject to government inspection and indefinite retention merely because it happens to exist on the same storage device as a record subject to a search warrant," EPIC wrote. "This exceeds the permissible scope of the government's authority to search and is an artifact of the courts' failure to make clear the boundaries of a lawful search." Instead, EPIC endorsed the approach set out in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, which allows a government agency to undertake appropriate searches without unnecessarily violating privacy interests. "As the Supreme Court recently recognized in Riley v. California . . . digital searches implicate greater privacy interests than traditional physical files and should be subject to increased constitutional protections." In 2012 EPIC recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a similar approach in the case City of Ontario v. Quon. EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in US v. Ganias (Jul. 29, 2015) https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/1565951-EPIC-Amicus-Brief-Ganias.pdf EPIC: 2nd Circuit Court Opinion in US v. Ganias (Jun. 17, 2014) https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/Ganias-Panel-Opinion.pdf EPIC: 2nd Circuit Court Order to Rehear Case En Banc (Jun. 29, 2015) https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/Ganias-En-Banc-Order.pdf EPIC: Riley v. California https://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/ EPIC: City of Ontario v. Quon https://epic.org/privacy/quon/ EPIC: EPIC Amicus Curiae Briefs https://epic.org/amicus/ ======================================================================= [5] EPIC v. DHS: Court Rules DHS Failed to Justify FOIA Withholdings ======================================================================= In the Freedom of Information Act case EPIC v. DHS, a federal district court has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security failed to justify withholding documents that were subject to the FOIA. EPIC sued DHS in 2012 to compel the disclosure of records relating to a cybersecurity program known as the Defense Industrial Base Cyber Pilot, designed to monitor traffic flowing through ISPs to a select number of defense contractors. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the agency's argument that participants in the DIB Cyber Pilot should be considered "sources" under FOIA Exemption 7(D) relied on "a weak assumption." The Court found that DHS had insufficiently explained why the participating companies are sources, but will allow the agency to submit a revised justification for withholding the records. The documents EPIC previously received in response to the FOIA request revealed that the US Department of Defense advised private industry on how to best circumvent federal wiretap law. The documents concern collaboration between the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security and private companies to allow government monitoring of private Internet networks. Although the program initially only applied to defense contractors, a 2013 Executive Order issued by the Obama Administration expanded it to include other "critical infrastructure" industries. EPIC previously won a five-year legal battle to release NSPD-54, the foundational legal document for US cybersecurity policies. US District Court for DC: Opinion in EPIC v. DHS (August 2, 2015) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/defense-monitoring/68-Mem-Op.pdf EPIC: Initial Complaint in EPIC v. DHS (Mar. 1, 2012) https://epic.org/foia/EPIC-DHS-NPPD-Complaint-03-01-12.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - Defense Contractor Monitoring https://epic.org/foia/dhs/defense-monitoring.html EPIC: NSPD-54 Appeal http://epic.org/foia/nsa/nspd-54/appeal/ EPIC: Cybersecurity https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/ EPIC: EPIC FOIA Cases https://epic.org/foia ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= EPIC Warns Boston City Council of Risks of Body Cameras EPIC has submitted a statement for the record to the Boston City Council hearing on mandating body cameras for Boston Police Department officers. EPIC opposes the use of "police cams" and warned the Council that body cameras could "become the next surveillance technology disproportionately aimed at the most marginalized members of society." EPIC also pointed to the potential liability for cities if harmful images are posted online, and explained that there are "more productive means to achieve police accountability that do not carry the risk of increasing surveillance." EPIC stressed that if body cameras are deployed, police departments must comply with all privacy and open- government laws. EPIC: Statement to BPD on Police Body Cameras (Aug. 5, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-epic-boston-cam-statement.html EPIC: "Police Body Cameras: Accountability or Public Surveillance?" (Jan. 29, 2015) https://epic.org/blog/2015/01/police-body-cameras-accountability- or-public-surveillance.html Federal Court Finds Fourth Amendment Protects Cell Phone Location Data A federal court in California has ruled that police must obtain a warrant before obtaining a user's location records. The court found that individuals have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their cell phone location data, based on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in United States v. Jones and Riley v. California. These phone records, the court held, can be even "more invasive" than the "GPS device attached to the defendant's car in Jones." EPIC has filed "friend of the court" briefs in the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's locational privacy. CA Federal District Court of San Jose: Decision in Case (Jul. 29, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-ca-4th-decision.html Duke University Law Journal: "Get a Warrant: The Supreme Court's New Course for Digital Privacy Rights after Riley v. California," by EPIC Senior Counsel Alan Butler (2014) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098 &context=djclpp EPIC: US v. Jones https://epic.org/amicus/jones/ EPIC: Riley v. California https://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/ EPIC: State of New Jersey v. Earls https://epic.org/amicus/location/earls/ EPIC: In re Historic Cell-Site Location Information https://epic.org/amicus/location/cell-phone-tracking/ EPIC: Locational Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/ After Losing Appeal, Google Moves to Block Scope of EU Privacy Right Google has indicated it does not intend to comply with a judgment of the European High Court after earlier losing an appeal in Google v. Spain. Earlier in 2015, the French Data Protection agency, consistent with the European Court of Justice's 2014 landmark decision, instructed Google to delist certain links in all domains in which the search company operates. A recently leaked version of a Google transparency report found that the vast majority of delisting requests concern the private matters of private individuals. Support for the "right to be forgotten" continues to grow around the world with courts in Japan, Canada and the US acknowledging similar claims. Google: Blog Post on Right to Be Forgotten (Jul. 30, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-google-eu-rtbf-post.html EU Court of Justice: Press Release on Google v. Spain (May 13, 2014) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-google-spain-release.html CNIL: News Release on Google Orders (Jun. 12, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/061515-cnil-google-order.html The Guardian: "Google accidentally reveals data on 'right to be forgotten' requests" (Jul. 14, 2015) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-a ccidentally-reveals-right-to-be-forgotten-requests US News & World Report: "The Right to Privacy Is Global," by EPIC President Marc Rotenberg (Dec. 5, 2014) http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-a-right-to-be- forgotten-on-the-internet/the-right-to-privacy-is-global EPIC: The Right to Be Forgotten (Google v. Spain) https://epic.org/privacy/right-to-be-forgotten/ Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the strict Texas voter ID requirement is unlawful because it would disproportionately burden minority voters, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. EPIC has raised similar arguments about voter privacy in a "friend of the court" brief in the US Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. EPIC argued in Crawford that "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system." EPIC also presented a statement to the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 highlighting the importance of the secret ballot. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals: Decision in Voter ID Law (Aug. 5, 2015) http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-5th-cir.pdf EPIC: Brief in Crawford v. Marion County (Nov. 13, 2007) https://epic.org/privacy/voting/crawford/epic_sc_111307.pdf EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board https://epic.org/privacy/voting/crawford/ EPIC: Statement to Judiciary Committee on Voting Privacy (Mar. 2007) https://epic.org/privacy/voting/voterid.pdf EPIC: Voting Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/voting/ Facebook Applies for Patent to Collect Users' Credit Scores Facebook has applied for a patent that would allow lenders to make credit decisions based on an applicant's Facebook activity. If the patent is approved, Facebook will be able to collect the credit scores of a user's "friends" and supply a creditor with their average score. If that average is below a certain threshold, the lender will reject the application. EPIC has filed extensive comments with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, urging the agency to limit the amount of information creditors can access about consumers. EPIC has called for algorithmic transparency in automated decisions concerning individuals. USPTO: Application for Facebook Patent (Aug. 11, 2015) http://1.usa.gov/1HJe2YX EPIC: FCRA and the Privacy of Your Credit Report https://epic.org/privacy/fcra/ EPIC: Comments to CFPB on Consumer Credit Privacy (Sep. 29, 2014) https://epic.org/privacy/cfpb/fdcpa/EPIC-Comments-FDCPA.pdf Consumer Financial Protection Bureau c EPIC: Comments to FTC on Fair Debt Collection Practices (May 27, 2011) https://epic.org/privacy/idtheft/EPIC_Debt_Collection_Comments.pdf EPIC: Algorithmic Transparency https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/ Coalition Successfully Blocks Restrictive FOIA Exemptions After receiving opposition from open-government advocates and support from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Senate has removed "b(3)" Freedom of Information Act exemptions from the Senate's transportation bill. The exemptions would have excluded public access to important information about safety audits, trucking company safety scores, accident footage and records related to hazardous train service. The final bill passed the Senate 65 - 34 without the controversial language, which Senator Leahy called "bad FOIA provisions" that should have been first reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. EPIC previously set out recommendations for FOIA reform. EPIC et al.: Letter to Senate Leaders re: FOIA (Jul. 25, 2015) https://epic.org/foia/Transp-Bill-Letter.pdf Sen. Leahy: Press Release on Highway Trust Fund Vote (Jul. 30, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-leahy-foia-release.html Sen. Leahy: Twitter Statement on FOIA Provisions (Jul. 30, 2015) https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/626867564954681344 EPIC et al.: Civil Society Action Plan on FOIA (Jun. 9, 2015) https://epic.org/open_gov/Model-Action-Plan-NAP-Final-20150609.pdf State Department, Homeland Security Propose Open Government Rules The US State Department and the Department of Homeland Security each have proposed to amend their Freedom of Information Act programs. Both agencies offer several favorable changes, including more circumstances in which the agencies would expedite processing for open-government requests. The agencies are accepting public comments on their proposals until September 28, 2015. EPIC recently submitted extensive comments to the Defense Department, opposing several of the agency's plans to amend its FOIA program. EPIC routinely comments on FOIA rulemakings and has had past success with the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and several other federal agencies. Fed. Register: State Dept. Proposed FOIA Changes (Jul. 28, 2015) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-28/pdf/2015-17856.pdf Fed. Register: DHS Proposed FOIA Changes (Jul. 28, 2015) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-29/pdf/2015-18388.pdf EPIC: Comments to DOD on Agency FOIA Program (Nov. 13, 2014) https://epic.org/open_gov/EPIC-Cmts-DoD-FOIA-Regs.pdf Fed. Register: DOD Notice of Proposed FOIA Changes (Sep. 3, 2014) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-09-03/pdf/2014-19747.pdf Fed. Register: Revision to DOJ FOIA Regulations (Apr. 3, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-doj-foia-regs.html Fed. Register: Revision to FTC's FOIA Regulations (Mar. 21, 2014) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-21/pdf/2014-05955.pdf Fed. Register: PCLOB Final Ruling on FOIA (Nov. 8, 2013) https://epic.org/2013/11/oversight-board-adopts-epics-r.html EPIC: "Defense Agency Adopts Favorable Open Government Rules After EPIC Comments" (Jun. 25, 2014) https://epic.org/2014/06/defense-agency-adopts-favorabl.html EPIC: "Interior Department Issues Revised FOIA Regulations, Addresses Some Open Government Concerns" (Jan. 3, 2013) https://epic.org/2013/01/interior-department-issues-rev.html GAO: Face Recognition Implicates Consumer Privacy, Remains Unregulated The Government Accountability Office has published a report on commercial use of facial recognition technology. The GAO compiled the report at the request of Senator Al Franken (D-MN), who objected to Facebook and Google's use of the technology. The GAO surveyed companies, federal agencies and NGOS, including EPIC. The report explains the technology's privacy risks, but also states that no laws or guidelines currently regulate facial recognition technology. The GAO also reports that the "extent of [the technology's] current use in commercial settings is not fully known." EPIC has frequently advocated for face recognition privacy laws. GAO: Report on Facial Recognition Technology (Jul. 2015) http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671764.pdf EPIC: Facial Recognition https://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/ Sen. Franken: Press Release on GAO Report (Jul. 30, 2015) http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3225 Sen. Franken: Letter to Facebook re: Facial Recognition (Sep. 12, 2013) https://epic.org/redirect/081415-franken-facebook-letter.html Press Release on Google Glass (Feb. 5, 2014) http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2699 EPIC: Letter to NTIA on Facial Recognition (Feb. 5, 2014) https://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/EPIC-ltr-NTIA-FaceRecog.pdf ======================================================================= [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================= "U.S. Supreme Court Asked To Review Secrecy Of DHS's Wireless Kill Switch Policy." Forbes, Aug. 12, 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabrownlee/2015/08/12/u-s-supreme- court-asked-to-review-secrecy-of-dhss-wireless-kill-switch-policy/ "Divided federal appeals court rules government needs warrant to get cellphone location data." Fierce Mobile Government, Aug. 12, 2015. http://www.fiercemobilegovernment.com/story/divided-federal- appeals-court-rules-government-needs-warrant-get-cellphone/ 2015-08-12 "How Facebook could affect your chances of getting a loan." The Toronto Star, Aug. 10, 2015. http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2015/08/10/how- facebook-could-affect-your-chances-of-getting-a-loan.html "DHS Must Rethink Justification For FOIA Withholding: Judge." Law360, Aug. 7, 2015. http://www.law360.com/privacy/articles/688566?nl_pk=6c9a0db8-f730- 40c6-a7fc-6206390c64f3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=privacy "Target joins the beacon bandwagon with trial in 50 stores." ComputerWorld, Aug. 6, 2015. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2960796/mobile-apps/target- joins-the-beacon-bandwagon-with-trial-in-50-stores.html "Judge Flags Redaction in Cybersecurity Program." Courthouse News Service, Aug. 6, 2015. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/06/judge-flags-redaction-in- cybersecurity-program.htm "NSA'S EPIC Fail: Spy Agency Pays Lawyers That Sue It." The Intercept, Aug. 5, 2015. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/05/ironic-way-privacy- groups-get-bankrolled-nsa/ "Privacy Advocates Urge FCC To Nix Phone Data Retention Rule." Law360, Aug 4, 2015. http://www.law360.com/privacy/articles/687116?nl_pk=f0de6bf1-38da- 4828-af43-c04aba064077&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=privacy "Stop forcing companies to save user data, groups urge in FCC petition." The Hill, Aug. 4, 2015. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/250186-privacy-groups-as-the- fcc-to-stop-making-telecom-companies-save-user-data "Civil liberties groups: Freedom at stake in 2nd Circuit seized hard drive case." Reuters, Aug. 3, 2015. http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/08/03/civil-liberties- groups-freedom-at-stake-in-2nd-circuit-seized-hard-drive-case/ "Google resists broadening 'right to be forgotten'." Consumer Affairs, Jul. 31, 2015. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/google-resists-broadening-right- to-be-forgotten-073115.html "CCSD pushes to release deceased student's farewell notes." Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jul. 30, 2015. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/ccsd-pushes-release- deceased-students-farewell-notes For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html ======================================================================= [8] 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 privacythey 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 ======================================================================= The Aspen Institute Presents "Aspen Institute 2015 Conference on Communications Policy." Speaker: EPIC Associate Director Khaliah Barnes. Aspen, CO: Aug 12-15, 2015. For More Information: https://classic.regonline.com/register/checkin.aspx?eventid=1700758. ======================================================================= 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 (EPIC) is a non-profit, independent public interest research center in Washington, DC. EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues. Today EPIC maintains one of the top privacy websites in the world. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, files amicus briefs on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues, and conducts policy research. For more information, visit http://www.epic.org. ======================================================================= Support EPIC ======================================================================= If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and 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 help support Freedom of Information Act litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy, and continued public education. Thank you for your support. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface: http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic_news Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 22.15-------------------------

Share this page:

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