EPIC Alert 23.05

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 23.05 March 15, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_23.05.html "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." http://epic.org/support ================================================================ Table of Contents ================================================================ [1] EPIC Files Brief in Suit Over Faulty Background Checks [2] TSA Airport Body Scanner Mandate Unlawful, Widely Opposed [3] EPIC Files Brief in Support of Apple and Consumers in FBI iPhone Case [4] FCC to Consider Limited Privacy Rules for Only ISPs    [5] EPIC Publishes 2016 FOIA Gallery  [6] FTC Releases Annual Consumer Complaints Report for 2015 [7] News in Brief  [8] EPIC in the News  [9] EPIC Bookstore [10] Upcoming Conferences and Events SUPPORT EPIC: https://epic.org/support/ ================================================================ [1] EPIC Files Brief in Suit Over Faulty Background Checks ================================================================ EPIC has filed an amicus brief in Smith v. LexisNexis Screening Solutions, a case concerning a data broker’s failure to ensure that the personal information they sold to others was accurate and reliable. The case was brought by David Alan Smith, who was denied employment after a background report, provided by LexisNexis, incorrectly included the criminal records of another individual with the same date of birth, David Oscar Smith. Mr. Smith sued the company and a jury found that LexisNexis had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to take reasonable procedures to ensure “maximum possible accuracy” in the report. In the brief, EPIC explained that data brokers “routinely provide detailed background investigations to employers that can make or break a job application.” The errors made by employment screening data brokers are especially egregious when they result from a failure to accurately match a prospective employee’s name with the correct criminal or credit records. As a result, government agencies and private litigants have filed numerous actions against these companies for producing reports with mismatched records. EPIC argued that employment screening data brokers should be strictly liable for these mismatch errors. Only the data brokers know what records are being compiled and sold, and so these companies must bear the cost of ensuring that all records in a background report match the prospective employee. EPIC frequently files amicus briefs and agency complaints to ensure greater protections for consumer data. In 2005, EPIC filed a FTC complaint regarding the data broker ChoicePoint, which ultimately led to a $10 million dollar settlement. ChoicePoint was later acquired by the parent company of LexisNexis and rebranded as LexisNexis Screening Solutions. EPIC: Brief in Smith v. LexisNexis Screening Solutions (Feb. 29, 2016)   https://epic.org/amicus/lexisnexis/Smith_LexisNexis_EPIC_Amicus.pdf EPIC: Smith v. LexisNexis Screening Solutions   https://epic.org/amicus/lexisnexis/ EPIC: The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)   https://epic.org/privacy/fcra/ EPIC: EPIC Amicus Curiae Briefs   https://epic.org/amicus/ EPIC: Litigation Docket   https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/ EPIC: ChoicePoint   https://epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/ ================================================================ [2] TSA Airport Body Scanner Mandate Unlawful, Widely Opposed ================================================================ The Transportation Security Administration has issued a final rule codifying the use of airport body scanners. This action comes nearly five years after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to “promptly” solicit public comments on the controversial scanner technology, following a challenge brought by EPIC to the agency’s practices. In 2011, EPIC challenged the TSA’s unlawful deployment of airport body scanners in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. That law requires federal agencies to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing a rule that affects the rights of the public. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in EPIC v. DHS that the TSA had violated this requirement by implementing body scanners as a primary screening method without first undertaking public notice and comment rulemaking. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Ginsburg found there was “no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking,” and said, “few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public.” EPIC also challenged the body scanners on Fourth Amendment grounds, but the court concluded that because “any passenger may opt-out of AIT [advanced imaging technology] screening in favor of a patdown” there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, the search was lawful because it was not mandatory. As a result of EPIC’s lawsuit, the TSA initiated a notice-and-comment rulemaking for airport body scanners in 2013. EPIC submitted extensive comments opposing the TSA’s decision to deploy body scanners in US airports. More than 5,000 comments were submitted by the public to the agency, almost all in opposition to the agency’s decision. Despite the public comments overwhelmingly in favor of less invasive security screenings, the agency will continue to use invasive body scanners at airports. The final rule also includes TSA’s view that is can mandate the use of body scanners even after it assured a federal appeals court that the particular search was optional. The new agency practice was announced in an updated Privacy Impact Assessment that stated, “While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening . . . as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security.” No other details have been provided. EPIC and 25 organizations have urged Congress to hold a hearing on the TSA’s unlawful determination that it has the authority to mandate body scanners. Final Rule: Passenger Screening Using Body Scanners (March 3, 2016)   https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/03/2016-04374/ passenger-screening-using-advanced-imaging-technology D.C. Circuit Court: Order in EPIC v. DHS (July 15, 2011)   https://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC_v_DHS_Decision_07_15_11. pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)   https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/tsa/bodyscanner/ EPIC: Comments re: Airport Body Scanners (June 24, 2013)   https://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-TSA-NBS.pdf TSA: Updated Privacy Impact Assessment on Body Scanners (Dec. 18, 2015)   https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-tsa-pia -32-d-ait.pdf EPIC et al.: Letter to House Oversight Committee (Jan. 13, 2016)   https://www.privacycoalition.org/TSA-Congressional-Oversight-Letter. pdf Public Comments re: Airport Body Scanners   http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 ================================================================ [3] EPIC Files Brief in Support of Apple and Consumers in FBI iPhone Case ================================================================ EPIC and eight other consumer privacy organizations have filed an amicus brief in support of Apple in the FBI iPhone case. Apple has opposed a court order requiring the company to create new software that would deactivate certain iPhone security features and therefore enable law enforcement to access encrypted files on a device seized during the San Bernardino investigation. The order, issued February 16, 2016, followed an FBI application under the All Writs Act to compel Apple to assist in the execution of a warrant to search the iPhone of a suspect in the December 2015 San Bernardino mass shooting. One of the security features the FBI seeks to deactivate would prevent an individual from entering multiple incorrect passcodes in rapid succession, and another would autoerase the phone’s data if ten incorrect passcodes are entered. Apple has opposed the order, arguing that it is unlawful and unconstitutional. In its brief, EPIC argued that the “security features in dispute in this case were adopted to protect consumers from crime.” Smartphones contain a wealth of sensitive, personal information. Smartphone apps allow users to access medical records, messages, photos, videos, library records, financial records, remote files, and even home appliances. Password keyrings and two-factor authentication apps also allow the phone to serve as a key to many other sensitive accounts and services. As a result, smartphones are a primary target for criminals. In response to a rapid increase in smartphone theft, device manufacturers such as Apple have developed powerful security features to protect consumers, often at the urging of law enforcement officials. Compelling Apple to disable these security features, EPIC argued, would place all phones at risk and lead to an increase in crime. EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases that raise novel privacy and civil liberties issues. EPIC has filed two briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in the past year in cases concerning consumer privacy and the Fourth Amendment, respectively. EPIC: Brief in Apple v. FBI (Mar. 3, 2016)   https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf EPIC: Apple v. FBI   https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/ Central CA US District Court: Order Compelling Apple (Feb. 16, 2016)   https://epic.org/redirect/022916-apple-court-order.html FBI: Application for Order Under All Writs Act (Feb. 16, 2016)   https://epic.org/redirect/022916-all-writs-order.html Apple: Motion to Vacate (Feb. 25, 2016)   https://epic.org/redirect/022916-apple-motion-to-vacate.html EPIC: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins   https://www.epic.org/amicus/spokeo/ EPIC: Utah v. Strieff   https://epic.org/amicus/strieff/ ================================================================ [4] FCC to Consider Privacy Rules for ISPs ================================================================ Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has circulated a proposal for limited privacy regulations for only Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that will be considered by the Commission on March 31, 2016. The Chairman’s proposal will “apply the privacy requirements of the Communications Act” to ISPs but not to Internet websites, search services, or social media platforms. While ISPs are engaged in invasive consumer tracking and profiling practices, focusing only on these providers misses a vast amount of data collection activities by other service providers. The proposal focuses on just three goals: choice, transparency, and security. EPIC has explained that a “notice and choice” approach to privacy protections fails to effectively protect consumer privacy. Research shows that consumers rarely read privacy policies; when they do, these complex legal documents are difficult to understand. Moreover, emphasizing notice or transparency favors the interests of businesses over consumers and fails to establish meaningful privacy safeguards. In a letter to the FCC on the proposed regulations, EPIC urged the Commission to establish a broad framework for communications privacy, based on Fair Information Practices. EPIC asked the FCC to explore “the full range of communications privacy issues facing US consumers,” and noted that European communications regulators are reviewing the EU “ePrivacy Directive.” EPIC urged the FCC to develop a framework for the global Internet that would help close the gap between Europe and the United States on consumer privacy. EPIC also urged the Commission to adopt data minimization requirements that oblige companies to collect only the data needed for the purpose at hand, and to safely dispose of that data once it is no longer needed for that purpose. Separately, EPIC filed a petition with the FCC, joined by 29 organizations, to end the mandatory retention of consumer data. FCC: Fact Sheet on Chairman Wheeler’s Proposed Privacy Rules for ISPs   http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0310/ DOC-338159A1.pdf FCC: March 2016 Open Commission Meeting   https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/03/march-2016-open- commission-meeting EPIC et al.: Letter to FCC on Broadband Privacy (Mar. 7, 2016)   https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/Broadband-Privacy-Letter-to-FCC. pdf EPIC: Letter to FCC on Communications Privacy (Jan. 20, 2016)   https://epic.org/redirect/012816-fcc-communications-privacy.html EPIC: The Code of Fair Information Practices   https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/code_fair_info.html EPIC: Petition to FCC to Repeal 47 C.F.R. § 42.6 (“Retention of Telephone Toll Records”) (Aug. 4, 2015)   https://epic.org/privacy/fcc-data-retention-petition.pdf ================================================================ [5] EPIC Publishes 2016 FOIA Gallery ================================================================ In celebration of the upcoming Sunshine Week, a national celebration of public access to information, EPIC has unveiled its 2016 FOIA Gallery. Since 2001, EPIC has published an annual FOIA Gallery to highlight EPIC’s most significant open government successes from the previous year. EPIC’s work under the Freedom of Information Act has focused in large part on government surveillance programs, which frequently lack transparency and public accountability. Congress has long recognized this tendency in the Executive Branch, and sought to limit government secrecy by creating legal obligations of openness under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. EPIC has used these open government laws aggressively to enable public oversight of potentially invasive surveillance initiatives. The 2016 FOIA Gallery features EPIC’s successful work in obtaining records on e-voting tests, a secret EU-US data transfer agreement, a massive boater tracking program, and a Department of Homeland Security program to identify violent groups. EPIC also highlights its victory in EPIC v. DOJ, a FOIA case where EPIC successfully obtained pen register oversight reports. EPIC: 2016 FOIA Gallery   http://epic.org/foia/gallery/2016/ Freedom of Information Act   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552 EPIC: EPIC v. DOD (E-voting Security Tests)   http://epic.org/foia/dod/e-voting/ EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ (Umbrella Agreement)   http://epic.org/foia/eu-us-data-transfer/ EPIC: EPIC v. USCG (Nationwide Automatic Identification System)   http://epic.org/foia/dhs/uscg/nais/ EPIC: Violent Intent Modeling and Simulation   http://epic.org/foia/dhs/vims/ DC US District Court: Opinion and Order in EPIC v. DOJ (Feb. 4, 2016)   http://epic.org/foia/doj/pen-reg-trap-trace/EPIC-v-DOJ-02042016- Opinion.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ (Pen Register Reports)   http://epic.org/foia/doj/pen-reg-trap-trace/ ================================================================ [6] FTC Releases Annual Consumer Complaints Report for 2015 ================================================================ The Federal Trade Commission has released a summary of consumer complaints in 2015, with debt collection, identity theft, and imposter scams remaining the top categories. The FTC received over 3 million consumer complaints in 2015. The highest rate of complaints related to debt collection, which accounted for 29 percent of all consumer complaints for 2015. Identity theft complaints were the second most reported, at 16 percent. The FTC received 490,220 identity theft complaints in 2015, up from 332,647 the previous year, a 47 percent increase from 2014. The report found that the personal information of identity theft victims is most often used for government documents or benefits fraud, including tax and wage identity theft. The second most frequent misuse is credit card fraud. Nearly a quarter of all identity theft complaints were received from consumers age 50 to 59 years, and a fifth came from those age 40 to 49 years. Identity theft was the most frequent complaint reported by military consumers in 2015. Identity theft has remained a top concern of American consumers for over 15 years. EPIC recently launched “Data Protection 2016,” a non-partisan campaign to make data protection an issue in the 2016 election. Reducing identity theft and financial fraud is a key component of the Data Protection 2016 platform. EPIC President Marc Rotenberg also testified recently before the Senate Special Committee on Aging at a hearing on “Protecting Seniors from Identity Theft: Is the Federal Government Doing Enough?” Rotenberg warned about the growing risk of identity theft due to the overuse of Social Security Numbers, which still appear on Medicare cards used by millions of America’s seniors. Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January - December 2015   https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel -network-data-book-january-december-2015/160229csn-2015databook.pdf FTC: Consumer Sentinel Network   https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/consumer-sentinel-network   https://epic.org/privacy/idtheft/ EPIC: Data Protection 2016   http://www.dataprotection2016.org/ EPIC: Testimony of EPIC President Marc Rotenberg on “Protecting Seniors from Identity Theft: Is the Federal Government Doing Enough?” Before the Senate Special Committee on Aging (Oct. 7, 2015)   https://epic.org/privacy/ssn/EPIC-SSN-Testimony-Senate-10-7-15.pdf ================================================================ [7] News in Brief ================================================================ FCC Reaches Settlement with Verizon over Hidden “Super Cookies” The Federal Communications Commission reached a settlement with Verizon Wireless for its practice of placing hidden, undeletable “super cookies” on customers' smartphones without their knowledge or consent. The settlement requires Verizon to notify its customers of its targeted advertising practices and to obtain opt-in consent before sharing consumer data with third parties. Verizon must also pay a $1.35 million fine. EPIC has recently urged the FCC to undertake a broad rulemaking on communications privacy issues facing consumers, including the invasive and ubiquitous tracking practices of ISPs. EPIC has also urged the Federal Trade Commission to limit the use of persistent identifiers. FCC: Settlement with Verizon Wireless (Mar. 7, 2016)   http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0307/ DA-16-242A1.pdf Letter from Commerce Committee Members to Verizon Wireless re: “Super Cookies” (Jan. 29, 2015)   http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/nelson-blumenthal-schatz- markey_letter_to_verizon_re_supercookies.pdf EPIC: Letter to FCC on Communications Privacy (Jan. 20, 2016)   https://epic.org/redirect/012816-fcc-communications-privacy.html EPIC, Consumer Privacy Coalition: Letter to FCC on Broadband Privacy (Mar. 7, 2016)   https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/Broadband-Privacy-Letter-to-FCC. pdf EPIC: Letter to FTC on Facebook Cookies (Sep. 29, 2011)   https://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_Facebook_FTC_letter.pdf EPIC: Cookies   https://epic.org/privacy/internet/cookies/ New Congressional Report Explores Legal Issues Regarding Compelled Decryption “Encryption: Selected Legal Issues,” a new report from the Congressional Research Service, explores two important legal questions that arise from government requests for compelled decryption: the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the scope of the All Writs Act, the federal statute at issue in Apple v. FBI. EPIC filed a “friend of the court” brief, joined by eight other consumer privacy organizations, in support of Apple's challenge in the FBI iPhone case, pointing to the increased risk of cell phone theft and financial fraud that would result from compelled decryption. Congressional Research Service: “Encryption: Selected Legal Issues” (Mar. 3, 2016)   http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44407.pdf EPIC: Apple v. FBI   https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/ EPIC: Brief in Apple v. FBI (Mar. 3, 2016)   https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf EPIC, Consumer Privacy Groups Urge FCC to Protect Consumer Privacy EPIC, joined by nearly a dozen consumer privacy groups, submitted a letter to the FCC reviewing the invasive consumer tracking and profiling practices of Internet service providers (ISPs), which “underscore the imperative for the FCC to exercise the full extent of its rulemaking authority to protect consumer privacy.” The letter explained why encryption and virtual private networks (VPNs) are insufficient to protect consumers from ISP surveillance. The letter described how the Federal Trade Commission's reactive, “notice and choice” approach to privacy fails to provide meaningful protections for consumers. EPIC previously urged the FCC to undertake a broad rulemaking on “the full range of communications privacy issues facing US consumers.” EPIC has worked with the FCC to promote consumer privacy in the communications field for more than 20 years. EPIC et al.: Letter to FCC on Broadband Privacy (Mar. 7, 2016)   https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/Broadband-Privacy-Letter-to-FCC. pdf The Verge: “Verizon Will Share Your Browsing Habits With AOL’s Massive Ad Network” (Oct. 6, 2015)   http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/6/9468025/verizon-will-share-your- browsing-habits-with-aols-massive-ad-network The Wall Street Journal: “Comcast Seeks to Harness Trove of TV Data” (Oct. 20, 2015)   http://www.wsj.com/articles/comcast-seeks-to-harness-trove-of-tv- data-1445333401?mg=id-wsj EPIC: Letter to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on FTC Section 5 Authority (July 25, 2014)   https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/EPIC-Congress-re-FTC.pdf EPIC: EPIC v. FTC (Enforcement of the Google Consent Order)   https://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/consent-order.html EPIC: Letter to FCC on Communications Privacy (Jan. 20, 2016)   https://epic.org/redirect/012816-fcc-communications-privacy.html EPIC: Comments to FCC on National Broadband Service (Jun. 8, 2009)   https://epic.org/privacy/pdf/fcc_broadband_6-8-09.pdf EPIC: NCTA v. FCC   https://epic.org/privacy/nctafcc/ EPIC: Petition to FCC to Enhance Security and Authentication Standards for CPNI (Aug. 30, 2005)   https://epic.org/privacy/iei/cpnipet.html EPIC: Testimony before US House on Communications Privacy (Mar. 1998)   https://epic.org/privacy/internet/rotenberg-testimony-398.html DHS Privacy Office Releases 2015 Data Mining Report The Department of Homeland Security has released the 2015 Annual Data Mining Report. The report describes several of the agency’s profiling systems that assign secret “risk assessments” to U.S. citizens. EPIC recently prevailed in a FOIA case involving a controversial DHS passenger screening program, the “Analytic Framework for Intelligence.” In EPIC v. USCG, another case concerning a DHS profiling program, EPIC uncovered records about a program to track boaters operating in US waters in which DHS stated that boaters “have no expectation of privacy.” The 2015 DHS report indicates expansion of agency profiling programs, including the “Automated Targeting System.” DHS: 2015 Data Mining Report to Congress (Feb. 2016)   https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-data-mining-reports EPIC: Passenger Profiling   https://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/profiling.html EPIC: Automated Targeting System   https://epic.org/privacy/travel/ats/ EPIC: Secure Flight   https://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/secureflight.html EPIC: EPIC v. CBP (Analytical Framework for Intelligence)   https://epic.org/foia/dhs/cbp/afi/ EPIC: EPIC v. USCG (Nationwide Automatic Identification System)   https://epic.org/foia/dhs/uscg/nais/ Bill to Establish Digital Security Commission Introduced in House Rep. Lieu (D-CA) has cosponsored bipartisan legislation to create a Digital Security Commission that will explore how law enforcement should pursue investigations without undermining constitutional privacy protections or American competitiveness. Rep. Lieu emphasized “strong national security and a strong economy requires strong encryption.” The legislation comes as Apple opposes a court order to compromise iPhone security features to allow government access to its smartphones. Congressman Lieu called upon “the FBI and DOJ to withdraw their coercive demands of Apple and allow the democratic process to work.” In 2015, EPIC gave the Champion of Freedom Award to Apple CEO, Tim Cook, for his work protecting privacy and promoting encryption. U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu: Press Release on Digital Security Commission Legislation (Feb. 29, 2016)   https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-ted-lieu- helps-introduce-digital-security-commission-legislation Digital Security Commission Act of 2016   https://homeland.house.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/2016.02. 29_Commission.pdf EPIC: Apple v. FBI   https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/ EPIC: Tim Cook Backs Privacy, Crypto, Freedom at EPIC Awards Dinner (June 2, 2015)   https://epic.org/2015/06/tim-cook-backs-privacy-crypto-.html Diffie, Hellman Win Turing Award for Public Key Encryption Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman have received the 2016 Turing Award for the discovery of public key encryption, the cornerstone of network security. The award is named for Alan Turing, a computer scientist who helped pioneer modern computing and broke the German Enigma code, hastening the end of the Second World war. The Turing award is considered the Nobel Prize of computer science and is given for major contributions of lasting importance by the Association of Computing Machinery. Diffie, a member of the EPIC Advisory Board, was one of the founders of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and received the EPIC Lifetime Achievement Award in 2012. Association of Computing Machinery   http://www.acm.org/ Association for Computing Machinery: Cryptography Pioneers Receive 2015 ACM A.M. Turing Award (Mar. 1, 2016)   http://awards.acm.org/turing-award-2015.pdf Wikipedia: Alan Turing   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing EPIC: EPIC Honors Sen. Al Franken, the Honorable Judge Kozinski, Dana Priest, Whitfield Diffie, and Willis Ware   https://epic.org/2012/06/epic-honors-sen-al-franken-the.html ================================================================ [8] EPIC in the News ================================================================ “New privacy rules proposed for Internet service providers.” Consumer Affairs, March 11, 2016   https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/new-privacy-rules-proposed-for- internet-service-providers-031116.html “Privacy groups want rules for how ISPs can track their customers.” PC World, March 8, 2016   http://www.pcworld.com/article/3041869/privacy-groups-want-rules-for -how-isps-can-track-their-customers.html “Consumer groups: FCC should not hold back on Internet privacy.” The Hill, March 7, 2016   http://thehill.com/policy/technology/272017-consumer-groups-fcc- should-not-hold-back-on-internet-privacy “Advocates Tell FCC To Fill ‘Void’ In Privacy Protection.” Law360, March 7, 2016   http://www.law360.com/articles/768053/advocates-tell-fcc-to-fill- void-in-privacy-protection “Privacy groups make follow-up FCC pitch.” POLITICO Morning Tech, March 7, 2016   http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tech/2016/03/privacy- groups-make-follow-up-fcc-pitch-hbo-time-warner-to-fcc-take-your-time- on-charter-deal-thune-to-intro-fcc-reauth-bill-213065 “Documents Show TSA Cover-Up of Body Scanner Cancer Risk.” Top Secret Writers, March 7, 2016   http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2016/03/documents-show-tsa-cover-up- of-body-scanner-cancer-risk/ “We Read All 20 Filings In Support Of Apple Against The FBI; Here Are The Most Interesting Points.” Techdirt, March 4, 2016   https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160303/23482933802/we-read-all- 20-filings-support-apple-against-fbi-here-are-most-interesting-points. shtml “TSA defends full-body scanners at airport checkpoints.” USA TODAY, March 3, 2016   http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/02/tsa-defends-full-body- scanners-airport-checkpoints/81203030/ “Hey, Siri and Alexa: Let’s talk privacy practices.” WLBZ, March 3, 2016   http://www.wlbz2.com/life/hey-siri-and-alexa-lets-talk-privacy- practices/65138459 “Digital Rights Groups Join Apple’s iPhone Fight With FBI.” Bloomberg Business, March 3, 2016   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/digital-rights- groups-join-apple-s-fight-with-fbi-over-iphone “Tech Companies Hesitated Before Supporting Apple.” New York Magazine, March 3, 2016   http://nymag.com/following/2016/03/tech-companies-hesitated-before- supporting-apple.html “Influencers: Incoming federal CISO can improve US government’s cybersecurity.” Christian Science Monitor: Passcode, March 1, 2016   http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Influencers/2016/ 0301/Influencers-Incoming-federal-CISO-can-improve-US-government-s- cybersecurity “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Agreement Released.” Lexology, March 1, 2016   http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=12d98cab-4654-44b8- a496-ecdc8afe577d “Federal Efforts in Data Privacy Move Slowly.” New York Times, February 29, 2016          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/technology/obamas-effort-on- consumer-privacy-falls-short-critics-say.html?_r=0 For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html ================================================================ [9] EPIC Bookstore ================================================================ "Privacy Law and Society, 3rd Edition," by Anita Allen, JD, PhD and Marc Rotenberg, JD, LLM. West Academic (Dec.2015). http://www.privacylawandsociety.org/ The Third Edition of "Privacy Law and Society" is the most comprehensive casebook on privacy law ever produced. It traces the development of modern privacy law, from the early tort cases to present day disputes over drone surveillance and facial recognition. The text examines the philosophical roots of privacy claims and the significant court cases and statues that have emerged. The text provides detailed commentary on leading cases and insight into emerging issues. The text includes new material on developments in the European Union, decisions grounded in fundamental rights jurisprudence, and exposes readers to current debates over cloud computing, online profiling, and the role of the Federal Trade Commission. Privacy Law and Society is the leading and most current text in the privacy field. =================================== "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. =================================== EPIC publications and books by members of the EPIC Advisory Board, distinguished experts in law, technology and public policy are available at the EPIC Bookstore: http://www.epic.org/bookstore ================================================================ [10] Upcoming Conferences and Events ================================================================ March 17, 2016 High-Level Hearing “The new US Privacy Shield for commercial transfers of EU personal data to the US” Speaker: Marc Rotenberg, EPIC President Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs European Parliament http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20160317-0900-COMMITTEE-LIBE March 18, 2016 New Developments in Consumer Privacy: From Spokeo, Inc. to Apple Speaker: Alan Butler, EPIC Senior Counsel American Bar Association Free Teleconference, 12:00PM - 1:00PM http://shop.americanbar.org/ebus/ABAEventsCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?productId=239679803 April 1-2, 2016 “We Robot” University of Miami Newman Alumni Center Miami, FL http://robots.law.miami.edu/2016/ April 20 - April 21, 2016 34th Social Science Research Conference: "The Invasive Other" Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg The New School New York, NY http://events.newschool.edu/event/the_invasive_other_-_34th_social_ research_conference_-_day_1#.VquI_VMrKIZ June 6, 2016 Data Protection 2016 National Press Club Washington, DC https://www.dataprotection2016.org/ June 6, 2016 EPIC 2016 Champions of Freedom Awards Event National Press Club Washington, DC Registration Now Open https://www.epic.orh/june6/ June 21, 2016 CSISAC Forum In conjunction with OECD Ministerial Conference Cancun, Mexico http://csisac.org/events/cancun16/ ================================================================ 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.

Share this page:

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