WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 14

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

EPIC Alert 11.14 [2004] EPICAlert 14


Volume 11.14 July 22, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] Ridge Declares CAPPS II Dead; Questions Remain
[2] 9/11 Commission Releases Final Report
[3] EPIC Testifies in Favor of RFID Privacy
[4] Appeals Court Urged to Reverse Ruling on PATRIOT Records
[5] EPIC Files Suit for Defense Data Mining Records
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Privacy in the 21st Century
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Ridge Declares CAPPS II Dead; Questions Remain

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge recently indicatedthat the controversial second generation Computer Assisted PassengerPrescreening System, more commonly known as CAPPS II, has beendiscontinued. Asked by a reporter whether the program could beconsidered dead, Ridge mimed driving a stake through its heart andsaid, "yes."

David Stone, acting administrator of the Transportation SecurityAdministration (TSA), days earlier had stated that the agency wouldnot move forward with CAPPS II as originally envisioned, but would be"reshaping and repackaging" the system. Stone acknowledged that CAPPSII's intrusion upon personal privacy contributed to his agency'sdecision to rework the program.

CAPPS II would have relied upon private-sector database companies toidentify passengers and perform risk assessments using governmentdatabases. Each passenger would have been assigned a risk score thatmight subject him to heightened security screening or detention. Thesystem would have scanned not only for suspected terrorists, but alsofor individuals wanted for violent crimes. The government spent morethan $100 million to develop the program before its discontinuation.

Last year, Congress voted not to provide funding for CAPPS II'Simplementation until the General Accounting Office, Congress'
investigative arm, could certify that lingering worries about theprogram had been allayed. The GAO's subsequent report concluded thatTSA had failed to address fully seven of eight implementation andoperational concerns, including the accuracy of the data relied on bythe system; abuse prevention; overall privacy concerns; and theredress process for people erroneously labeled as a threats ortargeted for additional scrutiny.

Questions remain about TSA's plans for passenger prescreening in thewake of CAPPS II's demise. Ridge indicated a new program with adifferent name would likely be developed to take the system's place.

The General Accounting Office report on CAPPS II:

For more information about CAPPS II, see EPIC's Passenger Profilingpage:

[2] 9/11 Commission Releases Final Report

Today the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the UnitedStates, also known as the 9/11 Commission, released its final reporton the circumstances surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks andprovided recommendations to guard against future attacks. "Since the[September 11] plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot knowwhether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them,"
the unanimous ten-member panel concluded in its executive summary.
"What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adoptedby the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed theprogress of the al Qaeda plot. Across the government, there werefailures of imagination, policy, capabilities and management."

The Commission's 567-page report recommends a major restructuring inthe U.S. national security framework, including an executive-levelintelligence director to oversee the activities of the CIA, the FBI,
and other intelligence agencies. The report also details as many asten missed opportunities by both the Bush and Clinton administrationsto thwart the terrorist hijackings, but stops short of concluding thatthe attacks could have been prevented. The report also calls forstrengthening the ability of the House and Senate intelligencecommittees to perform their oversight work. The Commission's reportrecommends that Congress give priority attention to improving theability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers.

EPIC supports the recommendation to target individuals who may becarrying materials that threaten the safety of airline travel ratherthan utilizing broad-sweeping profiling or data mining programs.

The Commission's report also asserts that responsibility lies with theexecutive branch to justify the continued use of the USA PATRIOT Act'sauthorities. The report states, "The burden of proof for retaining aparticular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain(a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) thatthere is adequate supervision of the executive's use of the powers toensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, theremust be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine itsuse."

The independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission was established byCongress in late 2002 to investigate the circumstances surrounding theSeptember 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In public hearings from March2003 to June 2004, the panel heard from members of the Clinton andBush administrations, New York City emergency personnel and victims'

In testimony before the Commission in December 2003, EPIC ExecutiveDirector Marc Rotenberg emphasized the important history of privacyprotection, the problems with new systems of surveillance, and thespecific need to preserve Constitutional checks and balances. EPICurged the Commission to consider the important role of publicoversight in evaluating the federal government's intelligencegathering authority rather than focusing exclusively on Congressionaloversight. EPIC also stressed the importance of protectingtraditional civil liberties safeguards to ensure that newanti-terrorism legislation develops in accordance with U.S. law andAmerican values concerning privacy and civil liberties.

Several of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commision reflected viewsexpressed by EPIC and others. For example, EPIC supports therecommendation to target individuals who may be carrying materialsthat threaten the safety of airline travel rather than utilizingsweeping profiling or data mining programs. EPIC also supports therecommendation of the Commission that there be a careful review of theUSA PATRIOT Act, including an assessment of both whether the Act"actually materially enhances security" and also whether there isadequate supervision to safeguard civil liberties.

At the same time, several of the proposals may raise civil libertiesand privacy concerns. The Commission calls for the continuedexpansion of the No-Fly and Automatic Selectee lists even as questionsremain about the accuracy and civil liberties impact of passengerprofiling. EPIC said, "Significant errors have been found in both theno-fly watchlists and the automatic selectee system. This is aparticularly serious problem for U.S. persons who travel within theUnited States. There should be an independent evaluation of how bestto operate these screening systems and still safeguard basic rights."

On the proposed expansion of oversight authority by the IntelligenceCommittees, EPIC noted that "streamlining the oversight ofintelligence agencies is sensible," but warned that the Congressionalintelligence committees "have a tradition of secrecy and extensiveclassification that may frustrate public oversight and press reportingon matters of national interest."

The 9/11 Commission has recommended the creation of secureidentification in the United States with the federal governmentsetting standards for "the issuance of birth certificates, and sourcesof identification, such as drivers licenses." EPIC commented that"Some steps should be taken to reduce the risk of fraud and identitytheft. Identification documents should be made more secure. However,
the integration of secure identity cards with interconnected databasesraises substantial privacy risks that will require new legislation andnew forms of oversight."

The 9/11 Commission's final report:

EPIC's testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

For more information about the report, see EPIC's 9/11 Commissionpage:

[3] EPIC Testifies in Favor of RFID Privacy

EPIC Policy Counsel CÚdric Laurant recently testified before the HouseCommittee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, andConsumer Protection, in a hearing on radio frequency identification(RFID) technology. RFID facilitates the electronic tagging ofphysical objects for a wide range of applications. Although the useof RFID is likely to increase efficiency in the supply chain andimprove management of inventory in retail stores, its use inindividual consumer products poses serious privacy implications. Ninewitnesses from the RFID and retail industries as well as citizen andconsumer advocacy groups testified at the hearing.

Representatives from the retail industry, which is beginning to useRFID in supply chains and on a limited basis on individual consumerproducts, asserted that no legislation is needed to regulate RFID.
Wal-Mart's Chief Information Officer dismissed concerns that retailerswill gather data about individual consumers, arguing that thetechnology does not exist to collect such information, and retailershave no interest in data collected through RFID. She further notedthat widespread use of RFID tags on consumer products is, in herestimate, at least ten years away. A representative of Procter &
Gamble argued that legislation for RFID would be premature becausecompanies are being responsible about data collection.

In his testimony, Laurant noted several RFID applications in use todaythat explicitly feature the tracking and monitoring of individuals anduse passive (non-self-powered) tags similar to ones that might be usedon consumer products. He also noted that although simple passive RFIDtags are not capable of storing data other than their uniqueElectronic Product Code, a significant portion of data generated overa product's lifetime will be stored in a centrally managed,
Internet-accessible database known as the Object Name Service. Ifinformation in this database is associated with personallyidentifiable information, the potential for abuses of consumer dataand individual privacy will dwarf that posed by any technologycurrently in use.

EPIC recommended that Congress, in keeping with its tradition ofextending privacy rights to new forms of technology, draft legislationtargeting the use of RFID in the retail sector. This legislation,
based upon guidelines EPIC recently presented at a Federal TradeCommission workshop on RFID, should require clear labeling and easyremoval of all RFID tags on consumer-level products. Further,
legislation should require users of RFID systems to refrain fromlinking personally identifiable to RFID tag data whenever possible andonly with the individual's written consent. Legislation should alsoprohibit the tracking or profiling of individuals via RFID in theretail environment.

EPIC's testimony to Congress:

EPIC's guidelines for use of RFID technology:

For more information about RFID technology, see EPIC's RFID Page:

[4] Appeals Court Urged to Reverse Ruling on PATRIOT Records

EPIC has submitted a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit seeking reversal of a lower court's refusal to expediteprocessing of a Freedom of Information Act request seeking informationabout the coordinated lobbying efforts of federal prosecutors tooppose legislation affecting the controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

In August 2003, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys sent amemorandum to all federal prosecutors, urging them to lobbyCongressional representatives in response to a recent vote in theHouse of Representatives. The House overwhelmingly approved anappropriations bill amendment, known as the Otter Amendment, to denyfunding for "sneak and peek" search warrants authorized by the USAPATRIOT Act. The memorandum attracted media attention nationwide andwas addressed by major newspaper editorials. In September 2003, EPICasked the Department of Justice for information about the memorandumand the progress of the prosecutors' lobbying campaign. EPIC alsosought expedited processing of the request.

The DOJ refused to expedite processing on the grounds that there wasno urgency to inform the public about issues raised by the memorandum,
and that the memorandum was not a subject of exceptional mediainterest. EPIC filed suit in federal court, moving for partialsummary judgment on the issue of expedited processing. In December2003, U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled that EPIC's requestwas not entitled to expedited processing. EPIC appealed the ruling.

In its brief to the Court of Appeals, EPIC argues that at the time ofthe request, the substantial news media interest in the OtterAmendment and USA PATRIOT Act served as evidence of the matter'sexigency to the public. EPIC's request concerned legislation that wasthe subject of extensive public debate and sought to answer basicquestions about government activities central to this discourse. Inaddition, EPIC argues that delays in processing compromised publicparticipation in the discussion of a controversial policy issue.
Because the Otter Amendment was under active legislativeconsideration, there was a limited window of time during which therequested information could potentially influence an ongoingCongressional debate.

EPIC also argues that the prosecutors' lobbying efforts were a matterof widespread and exceptional media interest and raised questionsabout government integrity. EPIC provided evidence of extensive andgeographically diverse news coverage of the lobbying campaign, andshowed that the matter had attracted editorial comment in news sourcesof all sizes. EPIC also argued that the lobbying efforts presentedactual questions of government integrity, including the propriety ofthe prosecutor memorandum and allegations of potential illegalityraised by members of Congress.

EPIC's appellate brief:

For more information about the case, see the EPIC v. DOJ Page:

[5] EPIC Files Suit for Defense Data Mining Records

EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense to forcethe expedited release of records concerning the Defense IntelligenceAgency's use of Verity K2 Enterprise, a program that reportedly minesdata from the intelligence community and Internet searches to identifyforeign terrorists and U.S. citizens connected to foreign terrorismactivities.

EPIC's interest in Verity K2 Enterprise was sparked in part by areport made public in May by the Technology and Privacy AdvisoryCommittee (TAPAC), which was established to review Defense Departmentdata mining initiatives after Congress killed funding for the TotalInformation Awareness program last year. The report concluded thatthe Defense Department "should safeguard the privacy of U.S. personswhen using data mining to fight terrorism," and also urged that "rapidaction is necessary to address the host of government programs thatinvolve data mining concerning U.S. persons and to provide cleardirection to the people responsible for developing, procuring,
implementing, and overseeing those programs." A General AccountingOffice report on data mining released shortly thereafter identifiedVerity K2 Enterprise as one such Defense Department data miningprogram.

In May, EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seekingthe expedited release of all Defense Intelligence Agency recordsrelated to Verity K2 Enterprise. In response, the agency merelyacknowledged that it had received EPIC's request, effectively denyingthe request for expedited processing by failing to make adetermination within the legally mandated time frame of ten days.
EPIC responded to the agency's denial by filing a complaint in theU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia earlier this week.

EPIC's complaint:
The TAPAC report on Defense Department data mining:

The General Accounting Office report on government data miningactivity:

For more information about Defense Department data mining, see theEPIC Total Information Awareness Page:

[6] News in Brief

President Bush has signed into law the Identify Theft PenaltyEnhancement Act, adding two years to prison sentences for peopleconvicted of using stolen credit card numbers, social securitynumbers, and other personal information to commit crimes. The new lawcreates two categories of aggravated identity theft. The firstimposes a five-year sentence for identity theft carried out inconnection with "terrorist offenses," and the second requires atwo-year sentence for identity theft committed in connection withother felonies. The extensive list of crimes that require thesentence increase when combined with identity theft includes mail,
bank, or wire fraud, theft from employee benefit plans, andimmigration law violations. The bill specifies that the enhancedpenalty may not be reduced by judges or made to run concurrently withpenalties not related to identity theft. In addition, the new law maybe used to prosecute individuals for using false identificationdocuments to receive federal benefits such as Social Security,
Medicare, and disability benefits.

Identity theft topped the list of consumer fraud complaints to theFederal Trade Commission in 2003, accounting for more than half thecomplaints tracked by the agency. The Commission recorded 214,905cases of identity theft in 2003, up from 161,836 in 2002. The U.S.
Attorney General's office states that the new law will be used topursue "phishers" who use fake e-mail addresses and fraudulentwebsites to fool recipients into divulging personal data such ascredit card numbers, account usernames and passwords, and socialsecurity numbers.

For information about the role of social security numbers in identitytheft, see EPIC's Social Security Number Page:

EPIC's testimony to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on SocialSecurity urging Congress to enact legislative protections for theSocial Security Number:

The Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) is beingrevised in an attempt to address privacy and legal concerns that haveled several states to withdraw from the project. Built by aconsortium of state law enforcement agencies, MATRIX combines publicrecords and private record data from multiple databases with dataanalysis tools, providing a wealth of personal information innear-real time. Eight of the original thirteen states in the pilothave dropped out of the program citing privacy problems and thepotential for abuse of the system. The remaining states --
Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- recentlyannounced a re-engineering effort to alleviate the problem of sendingpersonal data on citizens to the private company Seisint, a practicethat violates the states' data protection laws.

EPIC's amicus brief before the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevadadescribing MATRIX:

The Maryland Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decisionthat it is unconstitutional for the State of Maryland to compelproduction of a DNA sample for law enforcement purposes unrelated to aparticular investigation. In April EPIC submitted a "friend of thecourt" brief in the case, arguing that it is unconstitutional tocompel a DNA sample for the state's DNA database, which in turn feedsinto the FBI's vast national DNA database. EPIC pointed out that DNAcontains far more information than a fingerprint and that, in theabsence of privacy safeguards, a DNA sample collected for one purposecould be used in the future for unrelated purposes.

Court order in Maryland v. Raines:

EPIC's amicus brief in Maryland v. Raines:

For more information about DNA privacy, see EPIC's Genetic PrivacyPage:

Scott Levine, a high-level employee of Internet advertising, has been charged in a 144-count indictment withhacking into a database owned and operated by Acxiom, one of thecountry's largest data aggregators, and stealing 8.2 gigabytes ofpersonal data between April 2002 and August 2003. The charges againstLevine include conspiracy, unauthorized access of a protectedcomputer, access device fraud, money laundering and obstruction ofjustice. The data, acquired through 137 separate intrusions, wasallegedly used by to conduct spamming campaigns. Thecase stems from an investigation conducted last July into an unrelatedmatter that resulted in the indictment an Ohio man who was alsoaccused of stealing personal data from Acxiom.

Department of Justice press release:

The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced the appointment of DanCaprio as the agency's new Chief Privacy Officer. Caprio currentlyserves as a deputy assistant secretary for technology policy, and willcontinue to do so alongside his new role as privacy officer. Capriowill oversee all Commerce Department activities involving thedevelopment and implementation of federal privacy laws, policies andpractices. Before joining the Commerce Department, Caprio wasprincipal technology policy adviser at the Federal Trade Commission,
participated in a working group to revise Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development guidelines for IT security, and served asco-chairman of the National Cyber Security Partnership Awareness TaskForce.

Statement by Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans on Caprio'sappointment:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: Privacy in the 21st Century

Privacy in the 21st Century, Daren Bakst and Sylvia Burgess, eds.
(CLHE 2004).

The Council on Law in Higher Education has published a new book foreducators and administrators interested in privacy issues. Privacy inthe 21st Century is the first installment of an annual publicationthat will address a wide range of privacy issues relevant in thecollege and university setting. This first edition contains papers onlaw enforcement requests for personal information under the USAPATRIOT Act, identity theft, the Family Educational Rights and PrivacyAct, and media access to student records.

It also contains a paper by EPIC Associate Director Chris Hoofnaglecovering college and university student privacy issues. In it,
Hoofnagle argues that privacy is important for student safety, thedevelopment of autonomy, and for academic freedom. He explains thatinstitutions can be more privacy-sensitive by taking steps to reducereliance on Social Security Numbers, limiting marketing on campus,
avoiding biometric identification systems, encouraging good passwordhabits, providing avenues of anonymous expression, and reviewingnetwork monitoring practices.

Hoofnagle's paper calls attention to the rise of the use of studentidentification cards for access to all campus services. These systemscreate ubiquitous student tracking infrastructures and acclimate youngpeople to lifestyle where carrying identification is always necessary.
Additionally, certain systems such as BlackBoard's Bb One track andcontrol students' purchases and enable direct marketing to studentsand parents.

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

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

2004 UK Big Brother Awards. Privacy International. July 28, 2004.
London, UK. 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.
August 15-19, 2004. Santa Barbara, CA. For more information:

Ninth National HIPAA Summit. September 12-14, 2004. Baltimore, MD.
For more information:

Public Voice Symposium: Privacy in a New Era: Challenges,
Opportunities and Partnerships. Electronic Privacy InformationCenter, European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi), and PrivacyInternational. September 13, 2004. Wroclaw, Poland. For moreinformation:

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:

Health Privacy Seminar. Riley Information Services. September 17,
2004. Ottawa, Ontario. For more information:

Nethead/Bellhead: The FCC Takes on the Internet. Cardozo Law SchoolFlorsheimer Center for Constitutional > Democracy and the Yale LawSchool > Information Society Project. September 28, 2004. New York,
NY. 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:

Health Privacy Conference. Office of the Information and PrivacyCommissioner of Alberta. October 4-5, 2004. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. For more information:

Privacy and Identity: The Promise and the Perils of a TechnologicalAge. DePaul University Center for Intellectual Property Law andInformation Technology and School of Computer Science,
Telecommunications and Information Systems. October 14-15, 2004.
Chicago, IL. For more information:

IAPP Privacy and Data Security Academy & Expo. InternationalAssociation of Privacy Professionals. October 27-29, 2004. NewOrleans, LA. For more information:

Privacy and Security: Seeking the Middle Path. Office of theInformation & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; Centre for InnovationLaw and Policy, University of Toronto; and Center for AppliedCryptographic Research, University of Waterloo. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. October 28-29, 2004. For more information:

CFP2005: Fifteenth Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom andPrivacy. April 12-15, 2005. Seattle, WA. 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 11.14


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback