EPIC Alert 27.09

EPIC Alert logo

1. Justice Department Releases More of Mueller Report in EPIC Case

The Justice Department, as part of an open government lawsuit brought by EPIC, disclosed previously unreleased portions of the Mueller Report concerning Roger Stone (Volume 1, Volume 2, Appendices). The disclosure marks the first time that new material from the Mueller Report has been published since a redacted version of the report was released in April 2019.

Stone was convicted of obstruction and other charges in connection with Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The Justice Department previously argued that disclosure of information concerning Stone would interfere with his criminal case but, as EPIC noted in a recent filing, Stone's trial court proceedings have now ended.

The newly disclosed material from the Mueller Report sheds more light on the Trump campaign's awareness that Wikileaks would release hacked emails, Special Counsel Mueller's concern that President Trump may have lied in written testimony, and the possibility that the President discussed his responses to Mueller with Stone.

Judge Reggie B. Walton is also conducting an "in camera" review of the complete Mueller Report following the court's March 5 ruling in EPIC's case. Walton's decision cited "the need for the American public to have faith in the judicial process" and raised "grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report[.]" The court is expected to decide as early as next month whether more material must be released.

EPIC's case—the first in the nation for the disclosure of the Mueller Report—is EPIC v. DOJ, No. 19-810.

2. EPIC v. AI Commission: Court Orders Commission to Hold Public Meetings

A federal court, ruling in EPIC v. AI Commission, has ordered the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Chairman Eric Schmidt to open the Commission's meetings to the public.

The Commission is charged with developing recommendations on the use of AI in national security and defense contexts. But after the Commission conducted much of its work in secret and without public input, EPIC filed an open government lawsuit against the Commission last year. Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled in December that the AI Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the Commission recently began disclosing certain records to EPIC.

In his recent decision, Judge McFadden ruled that the AI Commission is also subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)—meaning the Commission must hold open meetings and proactively disclose any future records. "Today, the Court holds that Congress can and did impose Janus-like transparency obligations upon the AI Commission," Judge McFadden wrote. "No rule of law forced Congress to choose just one."

The court rejected the Commission's argument that it could not be subject to both the FACA and the FOIA. "These different obligations are complementary, not conflicting," Judge McFadden wrote. "[A]n entity subject to FOIA and FACA would need to look backward, producing records in response to requests, and forward, chronicling its activities and continually supplementing its records."

The case is EPIC v. AI Commission, No. 19-2906.

3. EPIC Urges Election Commission to Protect Secret Ballot

EPIC has filed comments to the Election Assistance Commission on the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 Requirements. EPIC urged the Commission to remove a provision allowing "recallable ballots," which are ballots that have already been cast but can be "individually retrieved." By their very definition, recallable ballots require linking the voter's identity with the voter's cast ballot.

"This is too great a risk to our democracy and violates the VVSG 2.0 Principles themselves, as well as many state laws and constitutional provisions," EPIC told the Commission. Though states are not mandated to comply with the Voting System Guidelines, the Guidelines shape the election security market.

EPIC's comments also underscored that "[t]he secrecy of the ballot is a foundation of our democracy. . . . The secret ballot reduces the threat of coercion, vote buying and selling, and tampering. For individual voters, it provides the ability to exercise their right to vote without intimidation or retaliation."

In 2016, EPIC published a report on the importance of the secret ballot, finding that all fifty states have constitutional provisions or statutes that require a secret ballot. EPIC has a long history of working to protect voter privacy and election integrity.

4. EPIC to Fifth Circuit: Do Not Allow Warrantless Cell Phone Searches at the Border

EPIC has filed an amicus brief that urges the Fifth Circuit to decline to extend the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to searches of cell phones.

The case, Anibowei v. Wolf, is a civil suit brought by a U.S. citizen attorney to challenge the warrantless searches of his cell phones at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. EPIC argued that the court should "follow the reasoning of Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States and decline to extend the border search exception to cell phones."

"As the Court in Riley recognized, cell phones are both quantitatively and qualitatively different than other containers because of the enormous amount of private data stored on and accessible from the devices," EPIC explained.

EPIC filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the privacy interests in cell phone data in both Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States. The Chief Justice cited EPIC's brief in his majority opinion in Riley.

5. Records Obtained by EPIC Reveal Privacy Risks of Utah, North Dakota Contact Tracing Apps

EPIC, through a pair of freedom of information requests, has obtained records from Utah and North Dakota that underscore the privacy risks of both states' COVID-19 contact tracing apps.

From Utah, EPIC obtained records concerning the Healthy Together COVID-19 app. The documents include a presentation from Twenty Holdings, Inc., the company that created the app, and describe details of its development. The records reveal that "[o]nce the economy resumes normalcy, the App will continue to provide the mechanism to monitor any emerging risks."

Utah's COVID-19 app currently relies on collated location data from all users rather than decentralized proximity tracking—a design choice that presents significant privacy risks. Yet the Utah Governor's Office of Management and Budget found no records of any audits or independent privacy assessments of the contact tracing app.

From North Dakota, EPIC has obtained a contract between the state and ProudCrowd, LLC for the Care19 contact tracing app. According to the state, the Care19 app generates a random ID number for each user when it is tracking users' movements. North Dakota's privacy policy states that the location data is kept private (not sent to third parties) and stored securely on ProudCrowd servers.

North Dakota has not explained why it would store private health data on a system not controlled by the government. But a recent report indicates that the Care19 app sends location data and a unique user identifier to Foursquare and a software bug tracking company called Bugfender. The app also sends the phone's advertising ID to Google.

EPIC has called on Congress to ensure that government agencies and private companies establish privacy safeguards for digital contact tracing. But without independent privacy assessments and strong privacy safeguards, contact tracing apps cannot be "robust, scalable, and provable."

6. Collins-Dexter, Daines, Farber, Gillibrand, Lambrinidis Receive EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards

Earlier this month, EPIC presented the 2020 EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards to Brandi Collins-Dexter, Senior Campaign Director at Color Of Change; Montana Senator Steve Daines; Professor and EPIC Advisory Board Member David Farber; New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; and Stavros Lambrinidis, the European Union Ambassador to United States.

Collins-Dexter received the EPIC Privacy Champion award for her work highlighting the disproportionate impact that surveillance and user tracking have on communities of color.

Sen. Daines received the EPIC Champion of Freedom award in recognition of his strong support of student privacy, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform, and the Fourth Amendment.

Prof. Farber received the EPIC Lifetime Achievement Award for his long-running commitment to privacy and internet security.

Sen. Gillibrand received the EPIC Champion of Freedom award for leading the charge in Congress for the creation of a U.S. Data Protection Agency.

And Ambassador Lambrinidis received the EPIC Champion of Freedom award for his service as a leading voice for fundamental human rights and data protection.

The EPIC Awards are given annually to individuals who have helped safeguard the right of privacy, promote open government, and protect democratic values with courage and integrity. Past recipients include Representative Justin Amash, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Senator Kamala Harris, Garry Kasparov, Senator Patrick Leahy, Representative Jan Schakowsky, Edward Snowden, and Judge Patricia Wald.

This year's EPIC Awards ceremony was conducted remotely via videoconference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier in the day, EPIC Interim Executive Director Alan Butler, EPIC Advisory Board member Bruce Schneier, and University of Arizona Professor Jane Bambauer participated in an online panel on "Privacy and the Pandemic."

News in Brief

EPIC Supports the Fight Against Systemic Oppression

The tragic deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor remind us that the needle has not moved on systemic issues of racism and police brutality in the United States. Across the country, protestors are demanding justice and challenging us to do our part to ensure this type of violence never happens again. EPIC understands that this problem is multi-layered. Black, brown, and indigenous communities are targets of more surveillance and policing than any other. This must end.

The consistent and disproportionate mistreatment of black people by police and other government entities further solidifies our commitment to government accountability, transparency, and the protection of civil liberties. We will continue to enforce open government obligations, expose illegal and intrusive behaviors by government bodies, and advocate for legislation that protects marginalized communities.

EPIC stands in solidarity with protestors, community groups, and advocates that fight against systemic oppression. We will not remain silent in the face of social injustice. EPIC will amplify the black voices working in our space, financially support programming aimed at supporting the black community, and be an ally to organizations fighting for racial justice. EPIC is not only looking outward in our efforts to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the black community, but we are also committed to upholding an inclusive workplace by eradicating the conscious and unconscious biases we hold.

Black Lives Matter.

EPIC Seeks Release of Records About Election Cybersecurity

EPIC has filed a cross motion for summary judgement in EPIC v. DHS seeking records about the agency's assessment of election vulnerabilities in 2016 and 2018. EPIC filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security after the agency designated election systems as "critical infrastructure" in 2017. The agency has released hundreds of pages of records to EPIC about the agency's role in election cybersecurity, but continues to withhold four categories of records including: (1) documents concerning contacts between DHS and state election officials, (2) Election Security Task Force meeting minutes, (3) the agency's assessment of cybersecurity risks to election infrastructure in September 2016, and (4) incident reports concerning vulnerabilities to election systems. EPIC explained that "[t]here is a profound and urgent public interest in the release of [these] records" because it "is necessary for the public to evaluate DHS's response to past incidents, to assess future threats to election systems, and to ensure accountability of the federal agency with the legal authority to safeguard our election systems." With the 2020 presidential election mere months away, it is critical that the public and Congress have access to these records so they can assess the effectiveness of the agency's election cybersecurity program and what steps the agency has taken to protect our democratic institutions. The case is EPIC v. DHS, No. 17-2047 (D.D.C.).

Bill to Ban Face Surveillance Introduced in Congress

Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), along with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) recently introduced legislation to stop government use of biometric surveillance, including facial recognition tools. The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act prohibits the use of facial recognition and other biometric technologies by federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection. "The use of face surveillance technology needs to end. Face surveillance violates Americans' right to privacy, treats all individuals as suspicious, and threatens First Amendment-protected rights," said Caitriona Fitzgerald, EPIC Interim Associate Director and Policy Director. "The technology has been shown time and time again to be biased and inaccurate, frequently misidentifying people of color. EPIC has repeatedly called for a moratorium on the use of face surveillance and the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2020 would stop the use of this dangerous technology. EPIC is proud to support it." EPIC recently settled a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against Customs and Border Protection regarding the agency's "alternative screening procedures" to determine whether travelers are able to to opt-out of facial recognition at airports. EPIC has launched a campaign to Ban Face Surveillance. Previously, EPIC and a coalition urged the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to suspend the use of face surveillance systems across the federal government. And last year, the Public Voice coalition called for a global moratorium on face surveillance.

Boston City Council Votes to Ban Facial Recognition

The Boston City Council has voted unanimously to ban the use of facial recognition technology by the city of Boston. The ordinance noted the "racial bias in face surveillance" and makes it illegal for the city of Boston to "obtain, retain, possess, access, or use any face surveillance system." Several municipalities in Massachusetts have already banned the use of facial recognition. EPIC previously testified before the Massachusetts Legislature in support of a bill to establish a moratorium on the use of facial recognition by state agencies. EPIC has launched a campaign to Ban Face Surveillance and through the Public Voice coalition gathered the support of over 100 organizations and many leading experts across 30 plus countries. An EPIC-led coalition has also called on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to recommend the suspension of face surveillance systems across the federal government.

EPIC Settles ICE Lawsuit About Technology Used for Warrantless Searches of Mobile Devices

EPIC has settled a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. EPIC sought records about the agency's use of mobile forensic technology used to conduct warrantless searches of mobile devices. EPIC obtained ICE contracts with Cellebrite and documents showing that Cellebrite's mobile forensic technology can bypass passcodes to extract email, voicemails, video, audio, photos, web browsing activity, and historical location data. A slide entitled "Legal Considerations" explicitly cited the U.S. v. Riley case, which held in an unanimous decision that police generally require a warrant to search cell phones. EPIC's amicus brief in that case, which was joined by twenty-four legal scholars and technical experts from the EPIC Advisory Board, was cited twice in the Court's opinion.

Germany's Highest Court Rules Facebook Illegally Combines Users' Data, Abusing Its Market Dominance

In an important decision for data privacy, Germany's Federal Court of Justice sided with antitrust regulators in a case challenging Facebook's practice of combining user data across different sources, including WhatsApp and Instagram. The Court held that Facebook's terms of use were abusive because they did not allow users to use the platform without also consenting to Facebook's collection of their data from other sites. The decision emphasized Facebook's dominant market position in Germany and recognized that Facebook thus had a special responsibility towards maintaining market competition. EPIC has repeatedly urged U.S. antitrust agencies to more aggressively regulate Facebook and other platforms, whose large mergers compromise user privacy and consolidate market power in a handful of companies. EPIC recently objected to the FTC's settlement with Facebook. EPIC continues to work with international stakeholders to ensure user privacy.

Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act Weakens Encryption, Undermines Public Safety

Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Marsha Blackburn have introduced the "Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act". The bill would make it illegal for manufacturers to build systems that cannot be accessed by law enforcement. EPIC strongly opposes this measure. "The Lawful Access To Encrypted Data Act will make it easier for bad actors to access people's communications. You cannot build a backdoor that only law enforcement can access. That's not how encryption works," said Alan Butler, EPIC Interim Executive Director. EPIC recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "now is not the time to undermine the systems that we all rely upon to secure our data and communications." EPIC cited growing problems of data breach and cyber attack. EPIC led the effort in the United States in the 1990s to support strong encryption tools and played a key role in the development of the international framework for cryptography policy that favored the deployment of strong security measures to safeguard personal information. EPIC also filed an amicus brief in Apple v. FBI in support of encryption.

New York City Passes New Surveillance Transparency Law

The New York City Council recently passed the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act, a law that enables public oversight of surveillance technologies used by the New York Police Department. The POST Act will require the police to publish documents explaining their use of surveillance technologies, accept public comments about them, and provide a final surveillance impact and use policy to the public. EPIC has worked for years to focus public attention on the privacy impact of emerging surveillance technologies, and has pursued open government cases against the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to release information about cell site simulators and other surveillance technologies. EPIC has recently launched a project to track and review algorithms used in the criminal justice system.

Senator Brown Unveils Data Accountability and Transparency Act

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown has announced that he will introduce the Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2020, a comprehensive privacy and data protection bill. The bill would (1) prohibit both private companies and government agencies from collecting personal data unless it is "strictly necessary" to carry out one of a few specified purposes; (2) ban the use of facial surveillance technology; (3) prohibit discrimination on the basis of personal data; (4) require accountability and transparency for algorithmic decisionmaking; (5) establish a federal data protection agency with the power to issue rules and enforce dozens of federal privacy laws; (6) enable individuals and state attorneys general to enforce the law in court; and (7) allow states to enact more restrictive privacy laws if they choose to. "The Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2020 sets a strong standard for data protection," said Caitriona Fitzgerald, EPIC Interim Associate Director. "Senator Brown's bill creates enforceable privacy rights and limits the amount of data companies can collect and keep about us." EPIC has long advocated for the enactment of comprehensive privacy legislation and the creation of data protection agency. EPIC's report Grading on a Curve: Privacy Legislation in the 116th Congress sets out the key elements of a modern privacy law.

EPIC, Coalition Tell House Judiciary to Remove Provision in Police Reform Bill that Shields Officers Engaging in Racial Profiling

EPIC and a coalition of over 20 organizations sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee urging the committee to remove Section 343 from the Justice in Policing Act of 2020. In response to mass protests against police brutality and systemic racism in the wake of George Floyd's death, more than 200 members of Congress introduced the Justice in Policing Act 2020 to combat police misconduct, use of excessive force, and racial bias in law enforcement. Section 343 limits the release of information about law enforcement officers who engage in racial profiling under the Freedom of Information Act. The letter states, "[I]nformation on law enforcement agencies' compliance with requirements to eliminate racial profiling is vital to the public interest, including information on public officials." The letter further emphasized that provision "undercuts the bill's own proposed reforms" and that the "FOIA already contains exemptions that balance personal information with the public interest." The bill includes a ban on law enforcement using facial recognition software. EPIC has advocated for the suspension of face surveillance systems across the federal government, including federal law enforcement. EPIC advocates for strong government oversight and accountability through its Open Government Project, routinely using the FOIA to obtain information to ensure that the public is fully informed about the activities of the government.

In Reversal, Zoom Will Make Enhanced Encryption Available to All Users

Zoom has announced that it will make enhanced encryption measures available to all users of the videoconferencing platform who provide a cell phone number—not just those who pay for the service. Earlier this month, Zoom said it would allow some of its users to fully encrypt their video communications, a response to the security and privacy flaws that EPIC and others have identified. But the company initially stated that Zoom administrators would retain the ability to access the real-time communications of non-paying users. Last year, EPIC sent a detailed complaint to the FTC citing numerous privacy and security flaws with Zoom and warning that the company had "exposed users to the risk of remote surveillance, unwanted video calls, and denial-of-service attack." In April, EPIC urged the FTC to open an investigation. Zoom's rollout of enhanced encryption follows a recent settlement with the New York Attorney General over the company's consumer safeguards.

EPIC, Coalition to Congress: Stop Funding Surveillance Tech Aimed at Peaceful Protesters

EPIC and a group of over 100 privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations recently urged Congress to halt funding of surveillance technology recently used against peaceful protesters and disproportionately aimed at communities of color. The group stated the need "to address the unconstitutional and dangerous use of surveillance by state, local and federal police officers against demonstrators protesting the murder of George Floyd and so many others perpetuated by systemic police brutality." In response to reports that the government conducted surveillance of peaceful protesters, EPIC filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests directed at the FBI the DEA and CBP. Earlier this year, EPIC filed similar FOIA requests with several government agencies after it was revealed that the agencies were using Clearview AI, the controversial facial recognition company.

Tech Companies Pull Back on Face Surveillance

Amid nationwide protests against police brutality and racist policing, three major technology firms have announced that they will abandon or prohibit law enforcement agencies from using their facial surveillance technologies. IBM announced that it would no longer offer "general purpose IBM facial recognition or analysis software" and that it opposes the use of such technology for "mass surveillance, racial profiling, [and] violations of basic human rights and freedoms. Amazon said it would prohibit law enforcement agencies from using its facial surveillance software for one year and urged Congress to "place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology." And Microsoft reiterated that it will "not sell facial-recognition technology to police departments in the United States until we have a national law in place, grounded in human rights, that will govern this technology." EPIC has launched a campaign to Ban Face Surveillance and through the Public Voice coalition gathered the support of over 100 organizations and many leading experts across 30-plus countries. An EPIC-led coalition has also called on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to recommend the suspension of face surveillance systems across the federal government.

EPIC, Coalition to Congress: Tech Responses to COVID-19 Must Protect Privacy & Civil Rights

EPIC and a group of over 80 consumer, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations have sent a letter to the House and the Senate that endorses "principles to protect the civil rights and privacy of all persons." The group stated that technology used in response to Covid-19 "must only be allowed if it is non-discriminatory, effective, voluntary, secure, accountable, and used exclusively for public health purposes." EPIC and a coalition of organizations previously sent a letter to the Coronavirus Task Force, urging the federal government to set guidelines that protect privacy and ensure equity in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The coalition raised concerns about public-private partnerships that utilize technology to respond to COVID-19 without the necessary privacy safeguards. Earlier this year, EPIC wrote to Congress stating that it is "essential that government agencies and private companies implement standards that safeguard privacy." EPIC has laid out several recommendations related to privacy and the pandemic.

Police Reform Bill Bans Use of Facial Recognition on Body Cam Recordings Without Warrant

The Justice in Policing Act, a sweeping police reform bill introduced this month, includes a ban on federal law enforcement's use of facial recognition software to scan body camera footage without a warrant. Section 372 of the bill says body cam footage may not be "subjected to facial recognition or any other form of automated analysis unless [...] a judicial warrant providing authority is obtained" and the court finds "there is probable cause to believe that the requested use of facial recognition is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Earlier this year, EPIC and over 40 organizations urged the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to recommend the suspension of face surveillance systems across the federal government. And last year, the Public Voice coalition called for a global moratorium on face surveillance. Over 100 organizations and several hundred experts from over 40 countries endorsed the Public Voice declaration.

EPIC v. DOJ: Court Orders Justice Department to Explain Mueller Report Redactions

A federal court, as part of EPIC v. DOJ, has ordered the Justice Department to appear before the court and provide more information about its redactions to the Mueller Report. Judge Reggie B. Walton is currently conducting an "in camera" review of the complete Mueller Report following the court's recent ruling in EPIC's case. But in his order, Judge Walton wrote that he "cannot assess the merits of certain redactions without further representations from the Department." The court ordered the DOJ to appear at an "ex parte" (one-on-one) hearing on July 20 to discuss the undisclosed portions of the Mueller Report. The book EPIC v. DOJ: The Mueller Report is available for purchase at the EPIC Bookstore. EPIC's case—the first in the nation for the disclosure of the Mueller Report—is EPIC v. DOJ, No. 19-810.

AI Commission Seeks Public Comments

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence is seeking public comments on federal AI policy—a step that EPIC has repeatedly urged the Commission to take. The Commission is charged with developing recommendations on the use of AI in national security and defense contexts. But the Commission has conducted much of its work in secret and without public input, leading EPIC to file an open government lawsuit against the Commission. EPIC won a court ruling that the AI Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and the Commission has begun disclosing its records. EPIC is also litigating to enforce the Commission's obligation to hold open meetings. Public comments to the AI Commission are due by September 30, 2020.

Two Bills Introduced to Restrict Microtargeting of Political Ads

Members of Congress have introduced two bills to restrict the microtargeting of online political advertisements. EPIC supports both bills. The Banning Microtargeted Political Ads Act, sponsored by Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-18), would prohibit online platforms from targeting ads at users on the basis of their personal data. "This is an important step forward in protecting Americans' privacy and in protecting our democratic institutions," said Caitriona Fitzgerald, EPIC Interim Associate Director and Policy Director. The Protecting Democracy from Disinformation Act would restrict microtargeting of political ads based on demographic characteristics and personal data collected online. "This bill will help ensure that the democratic process isn't distorted by privacy-invasive and discriminatory targeting of political ads," said John Davisson, EPIC Counsel. The bill is sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (RI-1) and co-sponsored by Reps. Sean Casten (IL-6), Alcee Hastings (FL-20), Jahana Hayes (CT-5), Henry Johnson (GA-4), and Stephen Lynch (MA-8). Both bills would allow consumers to sue platforms that engage in illegal microtargeting. EPIC's report Grading on a Curve: Privacy Legislation in the 116th Congress sets out the key elements of a modern privacy law.

EPIC in the News

More EPIC in the News »

EPIC Bookstore

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. Featured now at the EPIC Bookstore:

EU Law in Populist Times: Crises and Prospects (Francesca Bignami ed., 2020).

Authored by leading academics and policymakers, EU Law in Populist Times provides a comprehensive and cutting-edge analysis of the fields of European Union law at the heart of contemporary political debates—economic policy, human migration, internal security, and constitutional fundamentals at the national level.

Recent EPIC Publications

The AI Policy Sourcebook 2020, edited by Marc Rotenberg (EPIC 2020).

The AI Policy Sourcebook includes global AI frameworks such as the OECD AI Principles and the Universal Guidelines for AI. The Sourcebook also includes AI materials from the European Union and the Council of Europe, national AI initiatives, as well as recommendations from professional societies, including the ACM and the IEEE. The Sourcebook also includes an extensive resources section on AI, including reports, articles, and books from around the world.

The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2020, edited by Marc Rotenberg (EPIC 2020).

The Privacy Law Sourcebook is the leading resource for students, attorneys, and policymakers interested in privacy law in the United States and around the world. The Sourcebook includes major U.S. privacy laws. The Sourcebook also includes key international privacy frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the modernized Council of Europe Convention on Privacy. The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2020 includes the new California Consumer Privacy Act, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Public Voice Declaration for a Moratorium on Facial Recognition, and updates on GDPR implementation. The Sourcebook also includes an extensive resources section with information on privacy agencies, organizations, and publications.

EPIC v. Department of Justice: The Mueller Report, edited by Marc Rotenberg (EPIC 2019).

EPIC v. Department of Justice: The Mueller Report chronicles the efforts to obtain a full account of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. EPIC filed the first lawsuit in the country for the release of the full and unredacted Mueller Report and obtained a newly redacted version in early May 2019. EPIC is now challenging the redactions made by the Department of Justice in federal court. This volume is an essential guide to the legal arguments about the redactions, the dispute between the Attorney General and the Special Counsel, and EPIC's request for the Mueller Report and other records about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Communications Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, 5th Edition, by Jerry Kang and Alan Butler (Direct Injection Press 2016).

This teachable casebook provides an introduction to the law and policy of modern communications. The book is organized by analytic concepts instead of current industry lines, which are constantly made out-of-date by technological convergence. The basic ideas—power, entry, pricing, access, classification, bad content, and intermediary liability—equip students with a durable and yet flexible intellectual structure that can help parse a complex and ever-changing field.

Privacy Law and Society, 3rd Edition, by Anita Allen, JD, PhD, and Marc Rotenberg, JD, LLM. West Academic (West Academic 2015).

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 2015).

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 privacy—they propose solutions.

Contributors include: Steven Aftergood, Ross Anderson, Christine L. Borgman (coauthored with Kent Wada and James F. Davis), Ryan Calo, Danielle Citron, 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.

Upcoming Conferences and Events

EPIC Event: Risk Assessments in the Criminal Justice System. July 8, 2020. Via videoconference.

Share this page:

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