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-------------------------