EPIC Alert 22.17

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 22.17 September 17, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_22.17.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/support ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Defends Privacy Laws in Supreme Court Brief [2] New DOJ Policy Requires Warrants for Cell-Site Simulators [3] Congress Examines Commercial Drone Privacy and Safety Issues [4] EU, US Reach Data Transfer Agreement, EPIC Pursues Official Document [5] Privacy in the States: California, Oregon and Wisconsin [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Bookstore [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Fight Back Against Illegal US/UK Surveillance! LEARN about Privacy International's "Did GCHQ Spy on You?" Campaign: https://www.privacyinternational.org/illegalspying MAKE A CLAIM with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=16 FOLLOW Privacy International on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PrivacyInternational TWEET Your Support: #DidGCHQSpyOnYou/ @privacyint SUPPORT EPIC: https://epic.org/support/ ======================================================================= [1] EPIC Defends Privacy Laws in Supreme Court Brief ======================================================================= EPIC has submitted a friend of the court brief to the US Supreme Court in the upcoming case Spokeo v. Robins, defending Congress's authority to enact laws that safeguard the privacy of American consumers. In Spokeo v. Robins, Thomas Robins sued Spokeo, a major data broker, after the company published inaccurate personal information about him in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Throughout the litigation, Spokeo had asked the courts to dismiss the case. In the company's view, Robins lacked standing because he failed to show that he was specifically harmed. Congress passed the FCRA in 1970 in response to the rapid expansion of the credit reporting industry and an "almost complete lack of regulation" of credit reporting practices. The Act's purpose is to "protect consumers against arbitrary, erroneous, and malicious credit information" by "applying the principle of due process in the credit reporting business." EPIC's Supreme Court brief argued that "Congress enacted laws that establish rights for individuals and imposed obligations on the companies that profit from the collection and use of this data." Citing the current epidemic of privacy risks in the US, including data breaches, identity theft and financial fraud, EPIC asserted that now is "not the time for the Supreme Court to limit the ability of individuals to seek redress for violations of privacy rights set out by Congress." EPIC's brief was endorsed by 32 technical experts and legal scholars, all members of the EPIC Advisory Board. Oral argument is set for November 2, 2015. EPIC routinely participates as amicus in federal and state courts in cases concerning emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. EPIC: Friend of the Court Brief in Spokeo v. Robins (Sep. 8, 2015) https://epic.org/amicus/spokeo/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf EPIC: Spokeo v. Robins https://epic.org/amicus/spokeo/ EPIC: Fair Credit Reporting Act https://epic.org/privacy/fcra/ EPIC: Advisory Board https://epic.org/epic/advisory_board.html EPIC: Big Data and the Future of Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/big-data/ EPIC: EPIC Amicus Curiae Briefs https://epic.org/amicus/ ======================================================================= [2] New DOJ Policy Requires Warrants for Cell-Site Simulators ======================================================================= The US Department of Justice has released new guidance requiring the agency's law-enforcement components to obtain search warrants before many uses of "Stingray" cell-site simulators. A cell-site simulator operates as a fake cell phone tower, forcing nearby cell phones to register with the device and divulge identifying information. The simulator further triangulates a phone's location by measuring the phone's signal strength from several geographical spots. The recommendations follow from an open government case pursued by EPIC concerning Stingray devices. In 2012, EPIC initiated a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI to obtain documents on the agency's use of cell-site simulators and, in particular, what legal process the agency required before deploying the technology. EPIC ultimately received more than 4,000 pages of documents. The documents obtained by EPIC revealed that the FBI was using cell-site simulators without a warrant and was supplying the technology to other law enforcement agencies. The new Justice Department's guidelines take effect September 2015 and apply both to federal agencies and to state and local agencies working with the federal government. The guidance exempts law enforcement officers from the warrant requirement in "exigent" circumstances and in "exceptional circumstances where the law does not require a warrant." The DOJ guidance further requires that agencies delete all data collected by the cell-site simulator as soon as the target device is located, as well as at regular intervals during the investigation. Although cell-site simulators have the technical ability to intercept and disrupt communications, the guidance asserts that government simulators will not collect the contents of any communications nor any data stored on a phone itself. In 2012, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI to obtain documents on the agency's use of cell-site simulators and, in particular, what legal process the agency required before deploying the technology. EPIC ultimately received more than 4,000 pages of documents, which revealed that the FBI was using cell-site simulators without a warrant and was supplying the technology to other law enforcement agencies. EPIC has also filed several friend of the court briefs arguing that law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant before collecting location information. DOJ: Policy Guidance on Stingray Technology (Sep. 2015) http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/767321/download EPIC: EPIC v. FBI Stingray/Cell Site Simulator http://epic.org/foia/fbi/stingray/ EPIC: FOIA Request to FBI re: Stingray (Feb. 10, 2012) http://epic.org/foia/fbi/stingray/EPIC-FOIA-Request.pdf EPIC: US v. Jones https://epic.org/amicus/jones/ EPIC: US v. Earls https://epic.org/amicus/location/earls/ EPIC: Locational Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/ ======================================================================= [3] Congress Examines Commercial Drone Privacy and Safety Issues ======================================================================= The US House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a September 10 hearing on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Commercial Applications and Public Policy Implications. The hearing largely ignored the need for enforceable privacy legislation even though Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, emphasized that "we need to examine the privacy and security implications of this technology." EPIC has sued the FAA for failure to establish enforceable privacy safeguards prior to the deployment of commercial drones in the US. The EPIC lawsuit follows from a petition calling on the FAA to establish privacy rules, supported by more than 100 organizations and privacy experts. In EPIC v. FAA, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the agency's motion to dismiss and ordered full briefing by the parties. EPIC has also 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. Meanwhile, the FAA has granted approximately 1,500 exemptions from current safety requirements to commercial drone operators, even as states and Congress work to establish new safeguards. Regarding the use of drones by federal agencies, President Obama has issued a Memorandum requiring all federal agencies to adopt privacy rules for drone use. The order incorporates EPIC's recommendations in Congressional testimony and comments to federal agencies. The Memorandum does not, however, require enforceable privacy rules for the private sector's commercial use of drones. US House: Hearing on Commercial Drones (Sep. 10, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-house-drone-hearing.html EPIC State Policy Project: Drones and UAVs https://epic.org/state-policy/drones/ FAA: Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf 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: EPIC v. FAA - Petition for Review (Mar. 31, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/041515-epic-drone-petition.html 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: Comments to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Apr. 24, 2015) https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/EPIC-FAA-NPRM.pdf The White House: Memorandum re: Domestic Drones (Feb. 15, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/041515-white-house-drone-memo.html ======================================================================== [4] EU, US Announce Data Transfer Agreement, EPIC Pursues Official Document ======================================================================== The United States and the European Union have have signed an agreement for transatlantic data transfers that leaves open significant questions about the adequacy of data protection safeguards. Moreover, the document has remained secret with no official public release. EPIC immediately filed an expedited FOIA request to the involved US agencies for the public release of the agreement. The Agreement requires Congressional passage of the Judicial Redress Act, which would amend the US Privacy Act of 1974, before it takes legal effect. A small change to the definition of "individual" in the current US Privacy Act would have addressed the concerns of EU lawmakers. However, the "Judicial Redress Act" adopts a complicated and conditional structure that severely limits the rights of non-US citizens as compared with US citizens, contrary to the approach adopted in the US Freedom of Information Act. Consideration of Privacy Act also provides an opportunity for Privacy Act modernization proposals previously recommended by both members of Congress and EPIC. Such changes would establish an independent office for Privacy Act enforcement, correct a Supreme Court decision on the basis for determining damages, and improve agency accountability for Privacy Act compliance. In 2012, EPIC wrote, "In light of the Cooper decision, it is imperative that the Privacy Act modernization bill makes clear that individuals may be compensated for provable, non pecuniary harms arising from a government agent's intentional or willful violation of the act. By not compensating for serious harm arising from Privacy Act violations, government agencies have little incentive to thwart willful and intentional violations that lead to mental and emotional distress." Subsequent to EPIC's warning, the US federal government experienced the worst data breach in history. The Judicial Redress Act is scheduled for consideration by the House Judiciary Committee on September 17. EPIC: Letter to House Judiciary Committee (Sept. 17, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-epic-letter-agreement.html EU: Statement on "Umbrella Agreement" (Sep. 8, 2015) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-15-5610_en.htm EU: Fact Sheet on "Umbrella Agreement" (Sep. 8, 2015) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm EPIC: FOIA Request to DHS re: Agreement (Sep. 10, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-epic-agreement-foia.html Sen. Murphy (D-CT): Release on Judicial Redress Act (Jun. 17, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-murphy-redress-statement.html EPIC: Letter to State Dept. re: COE Convention 108 (Jan. 28, 2010) https://epic.org/privacy/intl/EPIC_Clinton_ltr_1-10.pdf Harvard International Review: "On International Privacy: A Path Forward for the US and Europe," by EPIC President Marc Rotenberg (Jun. 15, 2014) http://hir.harvard.edu/archives/5815 EPIC: Council of Europe Privacy Convention https://epic.org/privacy/intl/coeconvention/ EPIC: Recommendations for Privacy Act Amendments (March 27, 2012) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-epic-privacy-recs-1.html EPIC: Recs. for Privacy Act Amendments, Supplement (May 14, 2012) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-epic-privacy-recs-2.html ======================================================================= [5] Privacy in the States: California, Oregon and Wisconsin ======================================================================= California Governor Jerry Brown (D) has vetoed a bill that would have prohibited drone trespass below 350 feet over private property. The bill's author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) had stated that it established "clear rules so that we can properly balance privacy and innovation." Lobbying by tech companies including Amazon, Google and GoPro, as well as the National Press Photographers Association, contributed to the bill's defeat. Neighboring Oregon provides a civil action against drone operators who fly lower than 400 feet over private property. EPIC has testified before Congress in support of comprehensive drone privacy legislation, argued before the New Mexico Supreme Court in support of a warrant requirement for low-altitude aerial surveillance and sued the FAA for failing to establish drone privacy safeguards. Governor Brown did sign a "revenge porn" law, adding revenge porn as a disorderly conduct misdemeanor offense and expanding the current forfeiture provisions for child pornography to encompass revenge porn cases. Additionally, two strong privacy bills have passed both houses of the California State Legislature and are awaiting the governor's signature. The California Electronic Communications Act requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to gain access to data on an electronic device or from a service provider. Another bill passed unanimously by both chambers of the legislature limits the authority of local agencies to obtain cell site simulator devices, often referred to as "Stingrays." In Wisconsin, EPIC urged state lawmakers to protect the privacy of job seekers' Social Security numbers. In testimony submitted to the Assembly Committee on Workforce Development, EPIC expressed support for a bill that prohibits the Department of Workforce Development from requiring SSNs from persons trying to obtain employment information from the state. Requiring SSNs, EPIC argued, is inconsistent with the Privacy Act, which makes it unlawful for a government agency to deny a right, benefit or privilege because an individual refuses to disclose his or her SSN. EPIC has previously warned Congress about the link between SSN misuse and identity theft. EPIC's State Policy Project monitors state privacy issues nationwide. EPIC: State Policy Project: https://www.epic.org/state-policy/ State of CA: CA SB142: Drone Privacy Bill (Aug. 27, 2015) https://www.epic.org/redirect/091615-ca-drone-privacy.html CA Senator Jackson (D): Statement on Drone Privacy Bill (Aug. 27, 2015) https://www.epic.or/redirect/091615-ca-jackson-drone-statement.html Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA): Statement on Drone Bill Veto (Sep. 9, 2015) https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_142_Veto_Message.pdf State of CA: CA SB676: Revenge Porn Law (Sep. 9, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-ca-revenge-porn.html EPIC: Drones and UAVs https://epic.org/privacy/drones EPIC: EPIC v. FBI - Stingray / Cell Site Simulator http://epic.org/foia/fbi/stingray/ EPIC: Testimony to WI State Assembly on SSN Privacy (Sep. 15, 2015) https://www.epic.org/state-policy/WI-AB303-SSN-EPIC-testimony.pdf EPIC: Social Security Numbers https://epic.org/privacy/ssn/ ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= Government Gets Extension in EPIC Supreme Court Case The US Supreme Court has granted the US Solicitor General extra time to respond to EPIC's charges that the government's effort to keep a controversial cellphone shutdown policy under wraps is unlawful. EPIC has pursued public release of the government policy, known as SOP 303, since BART subway officials shut down cellphone service during a peaceful San Francisco protest in 2011. After EPIC prevailed in district court and a judge ordered release of the policy, the government appealed and a federal appeals court reversed the decision. In the Supreme Court petition, EPIC argued that the reversal was "contrary to the intent of Congress, this Court's precedent, and this Court's specific guidance on statutory interpretation." The government's response is now due on October 14, 2015. US Supreme Court: Docket for EPIC v. DHS (Aug. 13, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-scotus-epic-docket.html EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court in EPIC v. DHS (Aug. 11, 2015) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/Cert-Petition.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - SOP 303 http://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/ BART: Press Release on Service Interruption (Aug. 12, 2011) http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812 EPIC: Initial Decision in EPIC v. DHS (Nov. 12, 2013) https://epic.org/foia/dhs/internet-kill-switch/DCD-Order.pdf EPIC: Appeals Court Decision in EPIC v. DHS (Feb. 10, 2015) http://epic.org/redirect/022715-dc-opinion-killswitch.html European Privacy Supervisor Proposes Ethics Board The European Data Protection Supervisor will establish a new Ethics Board and has urged exploration of the "ethical dimension in future technologies to retain the value of human dignity and prevent individuals being reduced to mere data subjects." The recommendation follows the EDPS 2015-2019 Action Plan, announced earlier in 2015. EPIC has noted previously that computer scientists were among the first to establish ethical obligations for the development and use of new information technologies. EDPS: Press Release on Ethics Board (Sep. 11, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-ethics-board-release.html EDPS: 2015-2019 Action Plan (2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-ethics-board-manual.html U. Vermont: "A Scandinavian View on ACM's Code of Ethics" (1993) http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/WorldCodes/ACM.Commentary.html FTC Approves Final Order With Nomi Over Location Tracking The FTC has finalized an order with Nomi Technologies, resolving allegations that Nomi engaged in deceptive trade practices. Nomi, a company that provides retailers with in-store analytics via sensor- based tracking of customers' mobile devices, falsely promised customers the ability to opt-out at stores using its services. The FTC order prohibits Nomi from misrepresenting privacy practices in the future. EPIC has pursued several important consumer privacy issues with the FTC leading to settlements, including with Google, Snapchat, Facebook and other firms. EPIC currently has a complaint pending at the FTC concerning Uber and locational tracking. FTC: Agreement with Nomi re: Privacy Practices (Aug. 28, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-ftc-nomi-agree.html FTC: Press Release re: Agreement (Sep. 3, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-ftc-nomi-agree-release.html EPIC: In re Google Buzz https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/googlebuzz/ EPIC: Complaint to FTC Against Snapchat (May 16, 2013) https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/EPIC-Snapchat-Complaint.pdf EPIC: FTC Facebook Settlement https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/facebook/ EPIC: Complaint to FTC Against Uber (Jun. 22, 2015) https://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/uber/Complaint.pdf EPIC: Locational Privacy https://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/ EPIC: FTC https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/ Fed Agencies Seek Comment on Protections for Human Research Subjects The US Department of Health and Human Services is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to the "Common Rule," or ethical rules regarding US biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. The proposal seeks to strengthen requirements for informed consent but would also exempt certain categories of research from administrative review. The Department will accept public comments on the proposed revisions until December 6, 2015. EPIC previously submitted comments to the Department of Health and Human Services, warning that medical privacy standards for deidentification were "gravely inadequate" and urging support for stronger deidentification. EPIC routinely comments on privacy issues involved in health data. Federal Register: Proposed Rule on Human Subjects (Sep. 8, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/091615-fed-register-human-subjects.html Comments.gov: Informational and Comment Forms for Human Subjects Rule http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HHS-OPHS-2015-0008 EPIC: Comments to HHS on Human Subjects (Oct. 26, 2011) https://epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-et-al-Common-Rule-Cmts.pdf EPIC: Comments to HHS on HIPAA and Background Checks (Jun. 7, 2013) https://epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-HHS-HIPAA-Privacy-Rule.pdf ======================================================================= [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================= "Full Court Press: Suit targets Twitter for peeking at private tweets." The Boston Herald, Sep. 16, 2015. http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/2015/09/ full_court_press_suit_targets_twitter_for_peeking_at_private_tweets "Law enforcement presses state to ban release of body camera footage." Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sep. 15, 2015. http://www.startribune.com/law-enforcement-press-state-to-ban- release-of-body-camera-footage/327803451/ "Attorneys general on opposite sides in consumer info case." Nashoba Publishing, Sep. 14, 2015. http://www.nashobapublishing.com/ci_28809663/attorneys-general- opposite-sides-consumer-info-case#ixzz3lrdn63s "Drone policing in US seen as 'Wild West'." Phys.org, Sep. 13, 2015. http://phys.org/news/2015-09-drone-policing-wild-west.html "Appeals Court Considers Accountant's Claim That Agents Unlawfully Seized Computer Data." Connecticut Law Tribune, Sep. 11, 2015. http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202737040802/Appeals-Court- Considers-Accountants-Claim-That-Agents-Unlawfully-Seized- Computer-Data#ixzz3lreJF5P0 "States Rush to Regulate Drones Ahead of Federal Guidelines." Government Technology, Sep. 10, 2015. http://www.govtech.com/state/States-Rush-to-Regulate-Drones- Ahead-of-Federal-Guidelines.html "Siri is always listening. Are you OK with that?" Business Insider, Sep. 9, 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/siri-new-always-on-feature-has- privacy-implications-2015-9 "Apple's Ad-Blocking Feature Is Sending Publishers Scrambling." Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Sep. 9, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-09/apple-s-ad- blocking-feature-is-sending-publishers-scrambling "Appeals Court Urged To Scuttle Google Privacy Settlement." MediaPost, Sep. 8, 2015. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/257901/appeals-court- urged-to-scuttle-google-privacy-sett.html "Surveillance Society: State lags in privacy protection measures." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sep. 7, 2015. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/surveillance-society/2015/09/07/ Surveillance-Society-State-lags-in-privacy-protection-measures/ stories/201509070013 "Uber Takes Down Database Revealing Exact Trip Information." Digital Trends, Sep. 6, 2015. http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/uber-takes-down-searchable- database-with-exact-trip-location-date-and-time-information/ "DOJ adds warrant requirement to Stingray use." FCW, Sep. 4, 2015. http://fcw.com/articles/2015/09/04/doj-stingray.aspx?m=2 "'At Long Last,' DOJ Overhauls Controversial Stingray Spying Rules." Common Dreams, Sep. 4, 2015. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/04/long-last-doj- overhauls-controversial-stingray-spying-rules "Selfie Drones Jump Into Safety, Privacy Debate." Voice of America, Sep. 4, 2015. http://blogs.voanews.com/techtonics/2015/09/04/selfie-drones-jump- into-safety-privacy-debate/ "FAA Approves Corporation's Use of Drones To Collect Data, Prompting Protest from Privacy Advocates." VICE News, Sep. 2, 2015. https://news.vice.com/article/faa-approves-corporations-use-of- drones-to-collect-data-prompting-protest-from-privacy-advocates "Why It's Hard to Sue the NSA: You Have to Prove It Spied on You." Wired, Aug 28, 2015. http://www.wired.com/2015/08/hard-sue-nsa-prove-spied/ 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. ===================================== "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 ======================================================================= "Inextricably intertwined: freedom of expression and privacy in Internet Governance" Marc Rotenberg, EPIC President General Assembly - EU MAPPING Hannover Congress Centrum Hannover, Germany September 22, 2015 http://mappingtheinternet.eu/events "The Economic and Social Benefits of an Open Internet" Marc Rotenberg. EPIC President OECD Washington Center Washington, DC September 30, 2015 http://www.oecd.org/washington/upcomingevents.htm "Data Retention: The International Dimension" Marc Rotenberg, EPIC President Berlin House of Representatives Berlin, Germany October 14, 2015 http://www.eaid-berlin.de/?page_id=753 Computers, Freedom & Privacy 2015 Khaliah Barnes, EPIC Associate Director Fanny Hidvegi, EPIC International Law Fellow Hilton Mark Center Alexandria, VA October 13, 2015 - October 14, 2015 http://www.cfp.org/2015/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Call for Papers ISBA 2016 Identity Security, and Behavior Analysis February 29 March 2, 2016 Sendai, Japan http://www.ieee-isba2016.org Submission Deadline October 10, 2015 ======================================================================= 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 22.17-------------------------

Share this page:

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