EPIC Alert 22.16

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 22.16 August 31, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_22.16.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/support ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC's Challenge to FAA Lack of Drone Privacy Moves Forward [2] Appeals Court Upholds FTC's Data Security Authority [3] Federal Appeals Court Revives Driver Privacy Claims [4] Without Public Comment, FTC Narrows Section 5 Authority [5] Privacy in the States: Delaware and New Hampshire [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Machines of Loving Grace' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= [1] EPIC's Challenge to FAA Lack of Drone Privacy Moves Forward ======================================================================= The federal appeals court in Washington, DC federal appeals court has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to respond to EPIC's lawsuit concerning the agency's failure to establish privacy safeguards prior to the deployment of commercial drones in the United States. EPIC filed suit in March 2015 after the FAA failed to establish privacy rules for commercial drones as mandated by Congress. The agency had asked the DC Circuit to dismiss EPIC's lawsuit, but the appellate court directed the parties to prepare a merits briefing for a three-judge panel. EPIC's lawsuit follows a 2012 petition to the FAA backed by more than 100 organizations and privacy experts. EPIC submitted the petition immediately after Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which requires the FAA to integrate drones into US national airspace. The Act also mandates the FAA to develop a "comprehensive plan" for the integration and states that" issues, such as privacy and national security, need to be taken into consideration." In February 2015, the FAA announced a public rulemaking for the integration of small commercial drones into the national airspace. EPIC filed extensive comments with the FAA, urging the agency to propose drone privacy safeguards. "The increasing deployment of drones in the national airspace is one of the most significant threats to privacy faced by Americans today," EPIC wrote. EPIC requested that the FAA propose a number of new privacy rules including use and data retention limitations, transparency and public accountability measures and minimum security safeguards to protect drones from being hacked. EPIC further challenged the FAA's failure to propose privacy rules, underscored the need for privacy regulations and explained the specific privacy rules FAA should have proposed. "Drones cannot be safely integrated into or operated within the national airspace until the FAA establishes clear privacy rules to limit invasive recording and prevent dangerous self help" measures, EPIC argued. EPIC: Court Order for Merits Briefing EPIC v. FAA (Aug. 13, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/083115-drone-court-order.html EPIC: Comments to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Apr. 24, 2015) https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/EPIC-FAA-NPRM.pdf FAA: Proposed Rules for Small Commercial Drones (Feb. 23, 2015) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-23/pdf/2015-03544.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. FAA - Petition for Review (Mar. 31, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/041515-epic-drone-petition.html FAA: Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Feb. 1, 2012) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf FAA: Comprehensive Drone Plan (Sept. 2013) https://epic.org/redirect/041515-faa-drone-plan.html EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA re: Drones (Feb. 24, 2012) https://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf FAA: Denial of EPIC Petition to FAA (Nov. 26, 2014) https://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-Privacy-Rulemaking-Letter.pdf EPIC: Domestic Drones https://epic.org/privacy/drones/ ======================================================================= [2] Appeals Court Upholds FTC's Data Security Authority ======================================================================= The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide, an important case concerning the agency's authority to police companies' lax data security practices. EPIC, joined by leading technical experts and legal scholars, filed a 2014 "friend of the court" brief, defending the FTC's "critical role in safeguarding consumer privacy and promoting stronger security standards." EPIC explained that data breaches, which caused more than $500 million in damages in 2013 alone, are one American consumers' top concerns. EPIC also explained that "The FTC's authority to regulate business practices impacting consumer privacy is well established, the problem is obvious, and the agency has a clear record of success." EPIC further highlighted the cost of identity theft, which grew to $7.1 billion in 2013, including the $500 million attributable to enormous data breaches at major retailers. "Removing the FTC's authority to regulate data security would be to bring dynamite to the dam," EPIC warned. In 2012, the FTC brought an action against Wyndham, a major hotel chain, after the company failed to protect sensitive customer information, including credit card numbers and other personal data. The court found that "In total, [hackers] stole personal and financial information for hundreds of thousands of customers leading to over $10.6 million dollars in fraudulent charges." The FTC also alleged that the company's failure to protect this sensitive data was an "unfair and deceptive" trade practice. In response to the FTC's suit, Wyndham argued that the agency lacked authority to enforce security standards, and that the law did not provide "fair notice" regarding minimum data security standards. The court rejected both arguments, upholding the FTC's authority to police companies' data security practices. The court found that "In total, [hackers] stole personal and financial information for hundreds of thousands of customers leading to over $10.6 million dollars in fraudulent charges." The FTC also alleged that the company's failure to protect this sensitive data was an "unfair and deceptive" trade practice. The also court found that "a company does not act equitably when it publishes a privacy policy to attract customers who are concerned about data privacy, fails to make good on that promise by investing inadequate resources in cybersecurity, exposes its unsuspecting customers to substantial financial injury, and retains the profits of their business." The court determined that Wyndham had fair notice that the company's data security practices could be the basis of an unfair practice claim. 3rd Circuit: Ruling in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp, (Aug. 24, 2015) https://epic.org/amicus/ftc/wyndham/Mem-Op-14-3514.pdf EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Wyndham v. FTC (Nov. 12, 2014) https://www.epic.org/amicus/ftc/wyndham/Wyndham-Amicus-EPIC.pdf EPIC: Wyndham v. FTC https://www.epic.org/amicus/ftc/wyndham/default.html EPIC: Consumer Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/ EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/ EPIC: FTC http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc ======================================================================= [3] Federal Appeals Court Revives Driver Privacy Claims ======================================================================= In McDonough v. Anoka County, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has revived several cases brought under the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiffs, who included female journalists, brought suit after learning that their driver records had been accessed hundreds of times by state agencies. A lower court had ruled previously that the plaintiffs failed to bring the claims in time. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit. EPIC submitted a 2014 friend of the court brief in the case, arguing that "discovery," not "occurrence," is the correct standard for time limitations in privacy cases. The "harms stemming from compromised personal information," wrote EPIC, "are not always apparent, and in many cases are not discoverable for years." Although the appellate court ultimately affirmed that some plaintiffs' claims were time-barred, it permitted many to proceed. The defendants' justifications for accessing the plaintiffs' driving records, wrote the court, are not "sufficiently convincing to undermine the reasonable inference of impermissible purpose." The court also acknowledged that "[EPIC] raises legitimate concerns about the ability of identity thieves to utilize sensitive personal information found in motor vehicle records and the difficulty in detecting such a crime within the applicable limitations period." The appellate court has remanded the case to the district court to decide on the merits of the revived DPPA claims. EPIC: McDonough v. Anoka County https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/ EPIC: Friend of the Court Brief in McDonough (June 4, 2014) https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/EPIC-Amicus-McDonough.pdf Eighth Circuit: Opinion in McDonough (Aug. 20, 2015) https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/Mem-Opinion-14-1754.pdf District Court of MN: Opinion in McDonough (Feb. 21, 2014) https://epic.org/amicus/dppa/bass/District-Court-Order.pdf EPIC: The Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) https://epic.org/privacy/drivers/ ======================================================================= [4] Without Public Comment, FTC Narrows Section 5 Authority ======================================================================= The Federal Trade Commission has issued a "Statement of Principles Regarding Enforcement of FTC Act as a Competition Statute." Section 5 of the FTC Act empowers the agency to prohibit "unfair" business practices. This "unfairness" authority is broad and has been used by the agency in a variety of cases, recently against the Wyndham hotel chain for failing to protect customer records. According to the FTC, the newly released Statement "is intended to provide a framework" for the agency's exercise of this broad authority. However, the Statement raises two issues. First, it appears to narrow the Commission's ability to pursue unfair business practices. Second, the Statement was announced without any formal opportunity for public comment. FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez announced that the Statement makes "time-honored principles explicit; it does not signal any change of course in our enforcement practices and priorities." In contrast, FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen dissented and noted the lack of opportunity for public comment. EPIC and other organizations have urged the FTC to use Section 5 authority to address growing concerns about industry consolidation and privacy protection. In 2007, for example, EPIC and a coalition of privacy advocates urged the FTC to investigate Google's proposed acquisition of Internet advertising giant DoubleClick. EPIC has also noted the FTC's failure to incorporate public comments in its proceedings as required by law. In 2013 EPIC brought an FTC complaint against Snapchat for falsely claiming that user messages would "disappear forever." After a Commission investigation, Snapchat entered into a consent order with the agency. EPIC expressed support for the order, but criticized the FTC for failing to incorporate public comments. FTC: Statement of Principles on FTC Act (Aug. 13, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ftc-principles.html FTC: Statement of Chairwoman Ramirez on FTC Act (Aug. 13, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ftc-ramirez-statement FTC: Statement of Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen (Aug. 13, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ftc-ohlhausen-statement.html EPIC: Proposed Google/DoubleClick Merger https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/ EPIC: FTC Snapchat Complaint (May 16, 2013) https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/EPIC-Snapchat-Complaint.pdf EPIC: Comments on FTC - Snapchat Consent Order (Jun. 9, 2014) https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/FTC-Snapchat-Cmts.pdf ======================================================================= [5] Privacy in the States: Delaware and New Hampshire ======================================================================= The state of Delaware has passed four new privacy laws. Under the "Delaware Online Privacy and Protection Act," websites and apps must disclose the personally identifiable information they collect and how they use this information. The "Student Data Privacy Protection Act" enhances student privacy protections by banning companies from selling student data or using student data for targeted advertising. The "Victim Online Privacy Act" protects domestic violence survivors from having certain contact information posted online. The "Employee/ Applicant Protection for Social Media Act" bars employers from demanding access to current or prospective employee social media accounts. New Hampshire has enacted a strong location privacy law that requires a judicial warrant for access to cell phone location data. New Hampshire joins several other states that protect the privacy of cell phone location records, either by public law or court decision. EPIC has filed friend of the court briefs in the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of New Jersey, arguing that location tracking by the government is a search under the Fourth Amendment and should be conducted only with a judicial warrant. EPIC's State Policy Project monitors state privacy issues nationwide. EPIC: State Policy Project: https://www.epic.org/state-policy/ Delaware Online Privacy and Protection Act https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-privacy-act.html Delaware Student Data Privacy Protection Act https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-student-privacy-act.html Delaware Victim Online Privacy Act https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-victim-privacy-act.html Delaware Employee/Applicant Protection for Social Media Act https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DE-social-privacy-act.html New Hampshire Location Privacy Law http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0468.pdf EPIC: Letter to CA Court re: Automated Plate Readers (Jun. 25, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/063015-epic-ca-sc-amicus.html ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= DC Circuit Reverses NSA '215' Ruling, Sends Case Back to Lower Court A divided panel of the DC Circuit has reversed a lower court's decision that the NSA bulk metadata collection program violates the Fourth Amendment. The judges in Klayman v. Obama agreed that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence that his telephone records were collected. But the majority of the panel agreed that the plaintiff should be allowed to conduct "discovery" to prove standing, and remanded the case to the lower court. In 2013, EPIC filed a petition in the US Supreme Court, In re EPIC, arguing that the NSA program was unlawful. In 2014, EPIC and a broad coalition urged the President to end the NSA surveillance program. DC Court of Appeals: Decision in Klayman v. Obama (Aug. 28, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/083115-DC-appeals-klayman.html EPIC: Klayman v. Obama https://epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/klayman/ EPIC: NSA: Verizon Phone Record Monitoring https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/verizon/ EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/ EPIC et al.: Letter to White House re: Section 215 (Jun. 17, 2014) https://epic.org/privacy/Coalition-Ltr-to-End-NSA-Bulk-Collection.pdf FOIA Ombudsman: Investigation of DHS Practices after EPIC Complaint The federal FOIA ombudsman has informed EPIC that it the office is investigating the FOIA practices of six DHS component agencies. In 2014, EPIC and a dozen open government organizations urged the Office of Government Information Services to investigate the impermissible closures of FOIA requests. Via so-called "still interested" letters, some federal agencies notify FOIA requesters that unprocessed requests will be closed by the agency if there is no further communication. EPIC and the open government groups object to the practice and reminded OGIS that "no provision in the [FOIA] allows for administrative closures." A 2012 EPIC letter to OGIS led to a reduction of fee payments for FOIA requesters. OGIS: The Federal FOIA Ombudsman https://ogis.archives.gov/about-ogis.htm EPIC: Letter from OGIS re: FOIA Admin Closures (Aug. 27, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/083115-ogis-foia-letter.html Cornell Law School: Text of the FOIA https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552 EPIC: Letter to OGIS re: FOIA Procedures (Jun. 1, 2012) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/EPIC-DHS-FOIA-OGIS-Ltr-06-01-12.pdf EPIC: Letter from OGIS re: FOIA Fee Payments (Oct. 19, 2012) https://epic.org/open_gov/foia/OGIS-to-EPIC-re-DHS-10-19-12.pdf EPIC: FOIA Cases https://epic.org/foia/ EPIC: FOIA ROCKS FOIA.ROCKS Professor Latanya Sweeney Launches New Privacy and Technology Journal Harvard Professor Dr. Latanya Sweeney has launched Technology Science, a new online journal for "original material dealing primarily with a social, political, personal, or organizational benefit or adverse consequence of technology." The current issue of Technology Science features research on Facebook Messenger's geolocation collection and disclosure, medical privacy and price discrimination in international travel. EPIC has worked extensively to promote locational privacy, medical privacy and fair and transparent decision-making. Professor Sweeney serves as a member of the EPIC Advisory Board. Data Privacy Lab: Latanya Sweeney, Ph.D. http://dataprivacylab.org/people/sweeney/ Technology Science Magazine http://jots.pub/ EPIC: Locational Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/ EPIC: Medical Record Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/medical/ EPIC: Algorithmic Transparency: End Secret Profiling https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/ EPIC: EPIC Advisory Board https://epic.org/epic/advisory_board.html ======================================================================= [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================= "Uber Moves to Better Protect that Trove of Customer Data It Collects." Bloomberg BNA, Aug. 31, 2015. http://www.bna.com/uber-moves-better-b17179935386/ "Federal Court Gives Government OK to Collect Your Phone Records." IVN.us, Aug. 31, 2015. http://ivn.us/2015/08/31/federal-court-gives-government-ok- collect-phone-records/ "Tools for Tailored Learning May Expose Students' Personal Details." The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/technology/tools-for-tailored- learning-may-expose-students-personal-details.html "Are School Districts Equipped to De-Identify Student Data?" Government Technology, Aug. 27, 2015. http://www.govtech.com/education/Are-School-Districts-Equipped-to- De-Identify-Student-Data.html "FTC has authority to police cybersecurity - US appeals court." The Weather Space, Aug. 27, 2015. http://theweatherspace.com/2015/08/27/122389-ftc-has-authority-to- police-cybersecurity-us-appeals-court/ "Gmail To Auto-Update Google Calendar Events for Biz Users." News Factor Network, Aug. 26, 2015. http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200C613OO2 "'De-Identifying' Student Data Is Key for Protecting Privacy." Education Week, Aug. 25, 2015. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/08/26/de-identifying- student-data-is-key-for-protecting-privacy.html "Court rules Wyndham Hotel Group will have to fight suit over failure to protect customer data." Fox News, Aug. 25, 2015. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/08/25/ftc-says-wyndham- hotel-group-didnt-do-enough-to-protect-customer-data/ "Court Says the FTC Can Slap Companies for Getting Hacked." Wired, Aug. 24, 2015. http://www.wired.com/2015/08/court-says-ftc-can-slap-companies- getting-hacked/ "Appeals court upholds FTC's authority to enforce data security standards." Consumer Affairs, Aug. 24, 2015. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-ftcs- authority-to-enforce-data-security-standards-082415.html "Surveillance Society: Review shows few safeguards against student privacy leaks." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 24, 2015. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/surveillance-society/2015/08/24/ Surveillance-Society-Review-shows-few-safeguards-against-student- privacy-leaks/stories/201508240003 "Surveillance Society: Students easy targets for data miners." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 20, 2015. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/surveillance-society/2015/08/20/ Surveillance-Society-Students-easy-targets-for-data-miners/stories/ 201508230018 "Betrayal or 'Christmas in September'? Dueling experts assess Ashley Madison hack." The Week, Aug. 20, 2015. http://theweek.com/speedreads/572862/betrayal-christmas-september- dueling-experts-assess-ashley-madison-hack "Busting the Biggest Myth of CISA That the Program Is Voluntary." Wired, Aug. 19, 2015. http://www.wired.com/2015/08/access-cisa-myth-of-voluntary-info- sharing/ "HNTB Announces New Survey: 'Americans Expect Transportation Technologies to Improve Travel Safety'." PR Web, Aug. 18, 2015. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/08/prweb12910339.htm "High Court Urged To Press DHS For Cell-Disabling Plan Info." Law360, Aug. 17, 2015. http://www.law360.com/articles/691792/high-court-urged-to-press- dhs-for-cell-disabling-plan-info "DHS Might Get Forced To Divulge Its Secret Plan To Cut Mobile Service." iTech Post, Aug. 17, 2015. http://www.itechpost.com/articles/15624/20150817/dhs-might-get- forced-to-divulge-its-secret-plan-to-cut-mobile-service.htm "Will Supreme Court force DHS to divulge secret plan to cut cell service?" Ars Technica, Aug. 15, 2015. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/will-supreme-court- force-dhs-to-divulge-secret-plan-to-cut-cell-service/ For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html ======================================================================= [8] EPIC Book Review ======================================================================= "Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots," John Markoff http://amzn.to/1X3n4eJ More than thirty years ago, in the midst of growing enthusiasm for the field of Artificial Intelligence, MIT Professor Joseph Weizenbaum coined the phrase "The Artificial Intelligentsia." It was a pointed reference to the views, voiced by some leaders in the tech field, that machines could be made as smart as people, that rule-based expert systems would replace doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Weizenbaum's Eliza program, which mimicked a Jungian therapist ("I am not feeling well today" says the user. "Why are you not feeling well today?" responds the program), poked holes in the ascendancy of artificial intelligence Weizenbaum was correct, at least in the short term, that the benefits of AI had been oversold. IF-THEN routines did not constitute expertise. An AI Winter took hold in the 1980s. Many of the early AI companies collapsed. Doctors, not machines, continued to prescribe medication. And even the creation of a chess program that could defeat the world chess champion hardly signaled a new era in machine intelligence. But over time, the challenges and opportunities of AI did not diminish. Today we ask our phones for restaurant directions and medical advice. Expert system have made their way into a wide variety of industries. And the ethical dilemmas that confront manufacturers of autonomous vehicles and electronic caregivers seem all too real. The "trolley dilemma" what to do when an uncontrolled vehicle barrels toward innocent bystanders occupies a central place in many of these discussions. John Markoff, a veteran technology reporter for the New York Times with deep roots in Silicon Valley has an almost unique ability to place innovation in a social context and extract policy questions from the design of a new device. Markoff points to the central paradox of AI "Artificial Intelligence and IA "Intelligence Augmentation." In the first camp are those who welcome the ability of machines to replace people. In the second group are technologists who want invention to extend human capability, not replace it. But this taxonomy is less division and more dialectic. A system that can augment a human task may develop the ability to assume it. The debate is familiar to labor groups and economists. Almost with the rise of industrial capitalism was the central concern that machines in replacing people would lead to labor displacement. This has certainly transpired. The key concern about the net effect whether automation would decrease total employment is a question that seemed largely settled until a few years ago. Still, there is a big difference between machines displacing people and robots replacing people. And in the last few years, industrial pioneers Elon Musk and Bill Gates, along with Stephen Hawking, ethicists, scientists and others have warned that an AI that surpasses human intelligence could lead to the end of the human race. This is no longer about jobs. It is about survival. Markoff places great weight on enlightened technologists who could guide us toward outcomes that safeguard humans. It is a view well informed by a long tradition of debate and discussion, led by respected figures such as Norbert Weiner, Douglas Englebardt, Terry Winograd, and Eric Horwitz. But this view also tends to downplay the economic and institutional forces that may overwhelm the best of intentions. The automation of the labor force that took hold after the fiscal collapse of 2008 is one example. The military also plays a significant role in driving forward the automation process. In fact, the current debate over drones, which are simply autonomous flying robots, reveals some of the sharpest political choices concerning new technologies in many years. And then there is the human dimension. A new AMC series, Humans, suggests that the Frankenstein myth, the risk that we lose control of our inventions, captures only one of the challenges of integrating robots in everyday life. There is also the Pinochio scenario. What happens when people develop an emotional attachment to their devices? Is a skilled electronic caregiver preferable to an imperfect human? And if the answer is yes, will we also look to machines for other human roles? These questions are still a few years off. Others are not. One of the great robotics challenges, fueled by funding from the Department of Defense, are autonomous vehicles that can be driven on public roadways. It is simultaneously an enormous opportunity for innovation consider all of the safety features in new cars and a genuinely hard problem. What will an autonomous car do when stopped at a red light if a police officer is signaling vehicles to move through the intersection? And does the problem gain urgency when we recall that hundreds of people cross a busy intersection at any moment? Weizenbaum's warning about the acceptance of AI seems no less relevant today than when he wrote Computer Power and Human Reason (1976). And to Asimov's Laws for Robots, I would propose a fourth (technically, fifth) axiom: "A robot must always reveal to a human being the basis of its decision." Call this algorithmic transparency. Call this accountability for a solution, good or bad, to the trolley problem. Call it one way in the future we may be able to distinguish the devices we create from ourselves. - Marc Rotenberg =================================== [8] EPIC Book Store =================================== "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 ======================================================================= "Improving Federal Statistics for Policy and Social Science Research Using Multiple Data Sources and State-of-the-Art Estimation Method." Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Sept. 4, 2015. For More Information: https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49725. Brazilian Internet Steering Committee Presents "Algorithmic Transparency and Privacy." Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Sao Paulo, Sept. 16, 2015. For More Information: http://cgi.br/. "The Economic and Social Benefits of an Open Internet." Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Washington, DC: OECD Washington Center, Sept. 30, 2015. For More Information: http://www.oecd.org/washington/upcomingevents.htm. "Data Retention: The International Dimension." Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Berlin: Berlin House of Representatives, Oct. 14, 2015. For More Information: http://www.eaid-berlin.de/?page_id=753. Federal Trade Commission Presents "PrivacyCon." Washington, DC: Jan. 14, 2016. For More Information: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon. ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: http://facebook.com/epicprivacy 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 22.16-------------------------

Share this page:

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