WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 10

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

EPIC Alert 11.10 [2004] EPICAlert 10


Volume 11.10 May 29, 2004

Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.

Table of Contents

[1] Freedom 2.0 Examines Distributed Democracy
[2] Senator Leahy Receives EPIC Champion of Freedom Award
[3] Italian Official Offers European Perspective on Privacy
[4] Vint Cerf Discusses Privacy and the Internet
[5] Oversight Groups Issue Reports on Government Data Mining
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Freedom 2.0 Examines Distributed Democracy

EPIC hosted an international gathering of privacy advocates,
academics, technologists, media representatives and policymakers at"Freedom 2.0: Distributed Democracy," held at the Washington Club May21-22, 2004 in Washington, DC. The two-day policy conference featuredpanels, keynote presentations, and workshops on wide-ranging topicssuch as transparency, government oversight, the Public Voice, privacyactivism, anonymity and identity, and trustworthy computing.

One notable highlight was the panel discussion "Surveillance Post9-11," which examined where the line should be drawn between thegovernment's need to known and citizens' right to privacy. JerryKang, Visiting Professor at Georgetown Law Center, challenged theunderlying assumption that knowledge creates security. Kang suggestedthat social experience dictates what each person perceives as acceptedfacts, which heavily influences our perceptions of who is or who isnot trustworthy. The "in group" and the "out group" categorizationsof people within society are often not based on observations unique toeach encounter, but may be filtered by complex notions of race,
ethnicity, and now religious affiliation. He pointed out that historyis a great teacher in this respect and that these lessons can behelpful in directing policy regarding security today.

Judith Krug, Director of the American Library Association's Office ofIntellectual Freedom, recounted the experience of librarians who havefound themselves at the center of the privacy and security debateafter the passage of the Patriot Act. Section 215 of theanti-terrorism law forces librarians to comply with FBI agent'srequest to access library patron files without a court order. Thereaction to this provision of the Patriot Act by a majority oflibrarians has been extremely negative, which prompted AttorneyGeneral Ashcroft to characterize them as "hysterical."

Dr. Amitai Etzioni, Founder and Director of the Communitarian Network,
stated that some issues that are part of the privacy and securitydebate are discussed only for emotional impact, though members of theaudience during the question and answer phase following the panelpresentation disagreed that issues should be avoided because they aredifficult. Bruce Schneier, Chief Technical Officer of CounterpaneInternet Security, offered a technologist's perspective by saying thatincreasingly automated security needs the active participation ofwell-trained people. Technology that seeks to anticipate terroristactivity is a very challenging objective. He cautioned that peopleneed to think carefully about the privacy consequences of a technologydependent surveillance society.

For a look at the program and other panel topics, see the Freedom 2.0web site:

[2] Senator Leahy Receives EPIC Champion of Freedom Award

On May 20, 2004, EPIC honored Senator Patrick Leahy with the Championof Freedom Award for his work to safeguard civil liberties, protectprivacy, and promote open government.

Senator Leahy, who hails from Burlington, Vermont, was elected in 1974to the United States Senate at age 34 -- the youngest senator everelected from his state. He remains the only Democrat elected to thisoffice from Vermont and is now serving his fifth term.

Sometimes referred to as the "cyber senator," Senator Leahy has foryears actively promoted legislation associated with the Internet. Hewas one of the first members of Congress to go online and in 1995became the second senator to post a homepage. His web site has beenconsistently lauded as one of the Senate's best. A leading Internetmagazine has dubbed Senator Leahy the most "Net-friendly" member ofCongress.

Senator Leahy has taken the lead on many privacy issues, includingInternet and medical records privacy. He held Congress' first hearingin 1994 on privacy issues related to electronic medical records. He isalso a champion of open government and worked to update the Freedom ofInformation Act to ensure public access to government records in newelectronic formats.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, SenatorLeahy headed the Senate's negotiations on the anti-terrorism bill thatbecame the USA PATRIOT Act. He added checks and balances to theproposed law to protect civil liberties, as well as provisions whichhe authored to triple staffing along the US-Canada border, toauthorize domestic preparedness grants to states, and to facilitatethe hiring of new Federal Bureau of Investigation translators.

Senator Leahy's web site:

[3] Italian Official Offers European Perspective on Privacy

Italian Privacy Commission official Giovanni Buttarelli delivered akeynote address entitled "Promoting Freedom and Democracy: a Europeanperspective" at "Freedom 2.0: Distributed Democracy." First speakingabout some of the differences between the U.S. and EU data protectionregimes, Buttarelli explained that the right to data protection in theEU is becoming a statutory requirement, as several EU member states'
laws as well as the European Charter of fundamental rights have madeit an autonomous right and have committed its safeguard to autonomousand independent authorities, the privacy commissioners. He urged lawenforcement authorities to pay greater attention than in the past tohow huge databases have to be proportionate to the purposes police andsecurity agencies seek them for, to limit the amount of datacollected, the period of data retention, and to determine the entitiesthat can access those data.

Talking about hot privacy issues common to the EU and the U.S.,
Buttarelli argued for a public debate on the Cybercrime Convention nowthat ratification and transposition into national law are on theagenda of an increasing number of countries. The U.S. governmentsigned the Convention two years ago and its ratification will soon bediscussed in the Senate. In this regard, Buttarelli's main critiquefocused on the fact that signatory countries that do not belong to theCouncil of Europe (such as the United States) do not have to complywith stringent obligations resulting from international dataprotection instruments such as the 1981 Council of Europe ConventionNo. 108 on Privacy. Although contracting parties may make differentchoices at the national level when transposing the Convention, hesaid, they will nevertheless be bound to provide mutual assistance toforeign law enforcement authorities.

Buttarelli then compared a pending decision by the Council of the EUon passenger screening with the recent EU-US passenger name records(PNR) that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the EuropeanCommission and the Council of the EU recently brokered. The Europeanproposal better protects travellers' privacy interests, he explained,
because it strictly limits the amount of passengers' records disclosedto customs authorities, restricts the collection and use to legitimateand relevant purposes (such as border control), and limits dataretention periods to 24 hours. The PNR agreement was likened to a"stillborn child . . . imposed from above" because of a serious lackof institutional cooperation between the European authorities and theEuropean Parliament -- the EU's only elected body. Buttarellicriticized the current agreement as trusting technology and databasesto solve problems that require instead wholly different andbroad-minded approaches, and made it clear that, while the agreementrecognizes on one hand the importance of fundamental rights andfreedoms, it does not provide concrete safeguards for these rights.

Giovanni Buttarelli's speech is available at:

For more information about the PNR agreement between the U.S. and EU,
see EPIC's EU-US Airline Passenger Data Disclosure Page:

[4] Vint Cerf Discusses Privacy and the Internet

Vint Cerf, Chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names andNumbers (ICANN), spoke recently at "Freedom 2.0: DistributedDemocracy." Declan McCullagh, Washington Bureau Chief for,
interviewed Cerf, who also took questions from the audience. In hisdiscussion of the future of the Internet, Cerf repeatedly stressed theimportance of privacy protection in Internet policy implementation. Hebegan by discussing the growing ICANN budget, since this year theCalifornia non-profit is proposing a $16 million budget, almost twicelast year's figure. The growth of ICANN is especially notable as therole of the organization itself is constantly called into question.
ICANN is increasingly threatened by both intergovernmental policydevelopments such as the United Nations Internet Governance WorkingGroup (currently being established under the mandate of the WorldSummit on the Information Society) and by domestic lawsuits, such asone by VeriSign asserting a claim of antitrust violations (which wasrecently dismissed). Cerf stated the large budget increase wasnecessary as the issues and procedures the organization manages becomemore complex, such as the delegation of top-level domains. He statedthat while ICANN is growing, the organization is extremely transparentand democratic, always making documents open to the public andavailable on the web site. Cerf challenged the audience to name amore open organization.

A significant portion of Cerf's speech and the discussion period thatfollowed addressed the WHOIS database, a public directory of domainregistrant data available and searchable online. Currently,
registrants must enter information as personal as name, address,
telephone number, and e-mail address in addition to technical contactinformation, all of which can be found on the public WHOIS databaseonline. Cerf acknowledged the privacy risks of the WHOIS database.
Privacy experts warn that in addition to obstructing free speechrights, the availability of this information makes registrantsvulnerable to those interested in spamming, committing identity theft,
and even stalking. ICANN is currently in the middle of a PolicyDevelopment Process with three task forces assigned to create a policyon the WHOIS database.

One concern in the policy development is that the WHOIS database mayactually violate international data protection laws. At a recentICANN meeting, a representative from the European Commission suggestedthat if the original purpose of the WHOIS database is purelytechnical, the rights of access to and collection of that informationpertain solely to that original purpose. In his speech, Cerfconfirmed directly that the original purpose of WHOIS was indeedpurely technical. This means that under European law, technical userswould be the only ones with a legitimate claim to the information.
While intellectual property lawyers and law enforcement officialsclaim the WHOIS database must retain all its current data in itspublic form as a resource for their investigations, Cerf'sconfirmation that the WHOIS database was originally created fortechnical purposes makes it clear that such claims to the databasewould be inconsistent with its original purpose.

Cerf also discussed the upgrade from Internet Protocol version 4 toInternet Protocol version 6, a change that will mean increasing theaddress space from 32 bits to 128 bits. While this change is positiveand even necessary to accommodate additional IP addresses, there hasbeen concern over privacy risks associated with IPv6. The concern isspecific to Media Access Control (MAC) and the persistence of a uniqueMAC identifier. Cerf assured the audience that for IPv6, provisionshave been made to enable users to change their MAC address and avoid apersistent unique MAC identifier.

Cerf was asked about the application of the FBI's wiretap rules to newInternet services, such as Voice over Internet Protocol. He said atfirst that it seemed reasonable to apply rules to the Internet similarto those that had been applied to the telephone network, but he askedEPIC Executive Marc Rotenberg for his views. Rotenberg explained thatthere were two objections to the FBI proposal. First, he explainedthat when the legislation for the telephone network was considered in1994, there was a principled objection from privacy experts thatfederal wiretap law had always regulated government conduct and shouldnot be used to coerce private parties by, for example, requiringtelephone companies to make their networks wiretap-friendly. He saidthat although Congress rejected this view when it passed theCommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, it is still thecorrect interpretation of the Fourth Amendment principles thatunderpin federal wiretap law.

Rotenberg also explained that even though Congress accepted the FBI'sargument in 1994 for wiretapping the telephone network, Congress alsomade clear that the law simply covered telephony and could not beapplied prospectively to Internet-based services without furtherlegislation. He described the current efforts of the FBI to push theproposal forward through the Federal Communications Commission as"incredibly ambitious and without legal basis."

Cerf concluded the discussion by stating that privacy protection iscritical in these areas. He feels this is particularly the case asthe online population grows. Cerf commended EPIC for its workprotecting the privacy of Internet users over the last 10 years.


For more information about Vint Cerf, see his web site:

For more information about Internet governance, see The Public Voiceweb site:

[5] Oversight Groups Issue Reports on Government Data Mining

Two government oversight entities have released reports on thegovernment's use of technology to examine personal information aboutpeople to detect suspicious activity, also known as data mining.

The General Accounting Office recently issued a survey of data miningprojects throughout the government, concluding that data miningactivity is expansive. The report found that 52 of the 128 federalagencies currently engage or plan to engage in data mining. Further,
of the nearly 200 data mining projects are either underway or plannedthroughout the federal government, 122 involve the use of personalinformation, and 46 involve the sharing of personal information amongagencies. The report also found that 54 projects utilize personalinformation provided by privacy companies, 36 of which involvedpersonal information such as credit reports and credit cardtransactions.

Senator Daniel Akaka, the Congressman who requested the study, urgedin response to the report, "It is time that we review agency practicesand existing law to ensure that the privacy rights of individuals arenot violated through the development of new technology."

A second report on government data mining was recently released by theTechnology and Privacy Advisory Committee, which was established toreview Defense Department data mining initiatives after Congresskilled funding for the Total Information Awareness program last year.
The Committee found that "data mining is a vital tool in the fightagainst terrorism, but when used in connection with personal dataconcerning U.S. persons, data mining can present significant privacyissues." Accordingly, the Committee made several recommendations tosafeguard civil liberties in Department of Defense data miningprograms, such as the establishment of a regulatory framework togovern data mining involving information of U.S. persons and numerousoversight mechanisms.

Notably, the Committee also suggested a series of government-wideprotections for individuals, such as the passage of laws to protectcivil liberties when the government sifts through computer databasescontaining personal information. The Committee further proposed thatfederal agencies be required to obtain authorization from a specialfederal court "before engaging in data mining with personallyidentifiable information concerning U.S. persons."

The General Accounting Office, "Data Mining: Federal Efforts Cover aWide Range of Uses":

The Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee, "Safeguarding Privacyin the Fight Against Terrorism":

The Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee web site:

For more information about the Total Information Awareness program,
see EPIC's Total Information Awareness Page:

[6] News in Brief

On May 24, 2004, EPIC joined a coalition of privacy advocacyorganizations to file comments with five federal agencies which issueda proposed regulation under the Fair and Accurate Credit TransactionsAct. The Act, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, createsnew restrictions on the manner in which creditors, such as banks andcredit unions, can obtain and use medical information. Generally, theAct prohibits creditors from obtaining or using medical informationabout a consumer to determine whether the consumer is eligible forcredit. The Act also defines fairly narrow exceptions under whichcreditors may obtain and use medical information. The coalitionsupported the regulation's general prohibition on creditors obtainingor using medical information about a consumer in connection withdeciding whether the consumer is eligible for credit. The commentsurged that financial institutions not be permitted to routinelyrequest consent to obtain medical information and that affiliatesharing be limited.

The text of the coalition comments is available at:

For more information about privacy of medical information, see EPIC'sMedical Privacy Page:

For more information about the Fair Credit Reporting Act, see EPIC'sFCRA Page:

In a landmark decision, Iceland's Supreme Court has ruled that theHealth Database Act of 1998 does not comply with the country'sconstitutional privacy protections. The Act authorized the creationand operation of a centralized database of non-personally identifiablehealth data, with the aim of increasing knowledge and improving healthand health services. The Act was challenged in court by RagnhildurGudmundsdottir, who wanted to prevent the transfer of her deceasedfather's medical records into the database. The Court ruled that Ms.
Gudmundsdottir could not opt out of the database on behalf of herfather. However, she could prevent the transfer of the recordsbecause it is possible to infer information about her from theinformation related to her father's hereditary characteristics. TheCourt further ruled that removing or encrypting personal identifierssuch as name and address is not sufficient to prevent identificationof individuals, who might be identified from a combination of factorssuch as age, municipality of residence, marital status, education andprofession, combined with the specification of a particular medicalcondition. The Court ruled that the obligation to protect privacy,
imposed on the legislature by the Icelandic constitution, could not bereplaced by various forms of monitoring entrusted to public agenciesand committees.

The opinion is available at:

For more information about genetic databanks, see EPIC's GeneticPrivacy Page:

The United States Supreme Court has decided not to review two casesthat held that federal agencies' release of personal information didnot violate the Privacy Act. In the first case, Robinett v. StateFarm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals determined that the Department of Veteran Affairs had not"intentionally and willfully, and with flagrant disregard" releasedJerry L. Robinett's court-ordered medical records such that he couldmaintain a lawsuit under the Privacy Act.

The Supreme Court also declined to review Buckley v. Meis, a case inwhich the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim that asupervisor's intra-agency disclosure that an employee soughtassistance from an employee assistance program violated the PrivacyAct. The Ninth Circuit concluded that that the agency properly citedan exception to the Privacy Act providing for disclosure to "officersand employees of the agency which maintains the record who have needfor the record in the performance of their duties."

The Supreme Court's web site:

A weakened version of SB 1822, a bill that originally required consentof both senders and recipients before a company could scan thecontents of an e-mail for marketing purposes, passed the CaliforniaSenate by a 25-8 vote this week. The bill, introduced by Senator LizFigueroa (D-Fremont), will allow service providers to review e-mailfor automated, contemporaneous display of advertisements. Providerscannot retain any personal information derived from the e-mail orallow natural persons to view the messages. The bill also requiresproviders to delete messages permanently so that they areirretrievable.

The text of SB 1822 is available at:

The American Teleservices Association, a trade group representingtelemarketers, has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decisionof the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the constitutionalityof the telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry (see EPIC Alert 11.04). TheAssociation argues in its petition that commercial speech hasincreasingly been regulated impermissibly in the name of privacyprotection. The government must reply to the petition by June 17,

In recent years, direct marketers and data brokers have appealed manypro-privacy court decisions to the Supreme Court, but none has beengranted review. The high court was petitioned unsuccessfully in Moserv. FCC, a case upholding the opt-in provisions of the TelephoneConsumer Protection Act; in Trans Union v. FTC, a case upholding theFair Credit Reporting Act; in Nixon v. American Blast Fax, a caseupholding a flat ban on unsolicited fax spam; and in Anderson v.
Treadwell, a challenge to a New York "anti-blockbusting" law thatallowed homeowners to opt-out of solicitations designed to churn thehousing market by highlighting racial influx in the neighborhood.

American Teleservices Association Petition on the Do-Not-Call RegistryCase:

Supreme Court Docket in Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. FTC:

Amnesty International has released a 339-page annual report providingdata on human rights violations carried out by governments in 2003 in155 countries. The 2004 release includes an analysis of the activityof more than 175 armed groups over the previous four years, anddenounces them, as well as governments, for unleashing weapons ofterror -- direct and indiscriminate attacks and torture -- on civilianpopulations worlwide. Governments are criticized for committing manyof the same violations armed groups employed and for justifying theirresponse as initiatives in the "war on terror."

The report is available at:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook

The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit onthe Information Society (EPIC 2004).

The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook has been compiled to further adialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the process of the WorldSummit on the Information Society (WSIS). Beginning in 2003 andcontinuing through 2005, the UN WSIS will seek the views of nationalgovernments, private sector organizations and civil society, on theopportunities presented by information and communicationstechnologies. This publication is intended to promote understanding ofthe WSIS and encourage greater civil society participation in thecurrent phase of the Summit.

The WSIS Sourcebook includes the official UN documents, regional andissue-oriented perspectives, as well as recommendations and proposalsfor future action. The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook also provides auseful list of resources and contacts for individuals andorganizations that wish to become more involved in the WSIS process.
The Public Voice ( is a project of theElectronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), established to promotepublic participation in policy making on issues ranging from privacyand free expression to consumer protection and Internet governance.

EPIC Publications:

"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit onthe Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.

This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and theprocess of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Thisreference guide provides the official UN documents, regional andissue-oriented perspectives, as well as recommendations and proposalsfor future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contactsfor individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved inthe WSIS process.

"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, InternationalLaw, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40.
The "Physicians Desk Reference of the privacy world." An invaluableresource for students, attorneys, researchers and journalists who needan up-to-date collection of U.S. and International privacy law, aswell as a comprehensive listing of privacy resources.

"FOIA 2002: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," HarryHammitt, David Sobel and Mark Zaid, editors (EPIC 2002). Price: $40.

This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of theFreedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in theSunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 21stedition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalists andresearchers have relied on for more than 25 years. For those wholitigate open government cases (or need to learn how to litigatethem), this is an essential reference manual.

"Privacy & Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Lawsand Developments" (EPIC 2002). Price: $35.

This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state ofprivacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. The surveyexamines a wide range of privacy issues including data protection,
passenger profiling, genetic databases, video surveillance, ID systemsand freedom of information laws.

"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet ContentControls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.

A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet contentfiltering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filteringthreatens free expression.

"The Consumer Law Sourcebook 2000: Electronic Commerce and the GlobalEconomy," Sarah Andrews, editor (EPIC 2000). Price: $40.

The Consumer Law Sourcebook provides a basic set of materials forconsumers, policy makers, practitioners and researchers who areinterested in the emerging field of electronic commerce. The focus ison framework legislation that articulates basic rights for consumersand the basic responsibilities for businesses in the online economy.

"Cryptography and Liberty 2000: An International Survey of EncryptionPolicy," Wayne Madsen and David Banisar, authors (EPIC 2000). Price:

EPIC's third survey of encryption policies around the world. Theresults indicate that the efforts to reduce export controls on strongencryption products have largely succeeded, although severalgovernments are gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats ofencryption to law enforcement.

EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, freeexpression, crypto and governance can be ordered at:

EPIC Bookstore

"EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books

[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

RSA Conference 2004. RSA Security. May 31-June 1, 2004. Tokyo,
Japan. For more information:

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: New Developments & ComplianceIssues in a Security-Conscious World. Practising Law Institute. June7-8, 2004. San Francisco, CA. For more information:

TRUSTe Symposium: Privacy Futures. June 9-11, 2004. InternationalAssociation of Privacy Professionals. San Francisco, CA. For moreinformation:

The Policy Implications of Open Source Software. Forum on Technology& Innovation. June 10, 2004. Washington, DC. For more information:

Access & Privacy Conference 2004: Sorting It Out. Government Studies,
Faculty of Extension. June 10-11, 2004. University of Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. For more information:

13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: ThePower of People & Technology. June 11-13, 2004. Seattle, WA. Formore information:

Knowledge Held Hostage? Scholarly Versus Corporate Rights in theDigital Age. Annenberg Public Policy Center and Rice University inassociation with Public Knowledge and the Center for Public Domain.
June 18, 2004. Philadelphia, PA. For more information:

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: New Developments & ComplianceIssues in a Security-Conscious World. Practising Law Institute. June21-22, 2004. New York, NY. For more information:

Managing the Privacy Revolution 2004: New Challenges, New Strategies,
New Dangers. Privacy & American Business. June 22-24, 2003.
Washington, DC. E-mail info at

PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, andContent-Distribution Systems. PORTIA Project. July 8-9, 2004.
Stanford, CA. For more information:

O'Reilly Open Source Convention. July 26-30, 2004. Portland, OR.
For more information:

First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam. American Association forArtificial Intelligence and IEEE Technical Committee on Security andPrivacy. July 30-31, 2004. Mountain View, CA. For more information:

Crypto 2004: The Twenty-Fourth Annual IACR Crypto Conference.
International Association for Cryptologic Research, IEEE ComputerSociety Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the ComputerScience Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara, CA. August 15-19, 2004. For more information:

The Right to Personal Data Protection -- the Right to Dignity. 26thInternational Conference on Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.
September 14-16, 2004. Wroclaw, Poland. For more information:

2004 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. National Centerfor Technology & Law, George Mason University School of Law. October1-3, 2004. Arlington, VA. For more information:

Subscription Information

Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:

Back issues are available at:

The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.

Privacy Policy

The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and tosend notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share ourmailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legalprocess seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (linkto other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.

In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail addressfrom this list, please follow the above instructions under"subscription information."

About EPIC

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interestresearch center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 tofocus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the ClipperChip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medicalrecord privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.
EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Actlitigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248(fax).

If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic PrivacyInformation Center, contributions are welcome and fullytax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you cancontribute online at:

Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act andFirst Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for theright of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation ofencryption and expanding wiretapping powers.

Thank you for your support.

END EPIC Alert 11.10


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback