WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 15

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

EPIC Alert 11.15 [2004] EPICAlert 15


Volume 11.15 August 4, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] EPIC Report: Homeland Security Given Census Data on Arab Americans
[2] White House Responds to 9/11 Commission Report
[3] Court Rejects Agency Effort to Withhold CAPPS II Info From EPIC
[4] Agencies Issue Rules on Homeless Tracking; Bank Customer ID
[5] Congress Considers Bills to Strengthen E-Mail Privacy
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: A Little Knowledge
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] EPIC Report: Homeland Security Given Census Data on Arab Americans

EPIC obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act lastweek revealing that the Census Bureau gave the Department of HomelandSecurity statistical information on people who identified themselveson the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulationswere prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency, and do notindicate that similar information about any other ethnic groups wasrequested. The tabulations apparently include information aboutUnited States citizens, as well as individuals of Arab descent whosefamilies have lived in the United States for generations.

One tabulation shows cities with populations of 10,000 or more andwith 1,000 or more people who indicated they are of Arab ancestry. Foreach city, the tabulation provides total population, population ofArab ancestry, and percent of the total population which is of Arabancestry.

A second tabulation, more than a thousand pages in length, shows thenumber of census responses indicating Arab ancestry in zip codesthroughout the country. The responses indicating Arab ancestry aresubdivided into Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan,
Palestinian, Syrian, Arab/Arabic, and Other Arab.

The heavily redacted documents show that in April 2004, a CensusBureau analyst e-mailed a Department of Homeland Security official andsaid, "You got a file of Arab ancestry information by ZIP CodeTabulation Area from me last December (2003). My superiors are nowasking questions about the usage of that data, given the sensitivityof different data requests we have received about the Arabpopulation."

The same day, a Department of Homeland Security Customs and BorderProtection official e-mailed the analyst to explain, "At U.S.
International airports, U.S. Customs posts signage informing variousnationalities of the U.S. Customs regulations to report currencybrought into the US upon entry . . . . My reason for asking for U.S.
demographic data is to aid the Outbound Passenger Program Officer inidentifying which language of signage, based on U.S. ethnicnationality population, would be best to post at the majorInternational airports."

During World War II, the Census Bureau provided statisticalinformation to help the War Department round up more than 120,000innocent Japanese Americans and confine them to internment camps.

The tabulations were produced using data from the 2000 censuslong-form questionnaire, which goes to only a sample of thepopulation. The tabulation figures, therefore, do not provide anentirely accurate representation of the Arab American population.

The documents:

For more information on the census and privacy, see EPIC's CensusPrivacy Page:

[2] White House Responds to 9/11 Commission Report

In a White House Rose Garden speech on Monday, President Bush endorsedtwo significant recommendations contained in the final report of theNational Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/11Commission: the creation of a national intelligence director and thedevelopment of a national counterterrorism center that will operate as"our government's knowledge bank for information about known andsuspected terrorists."

The final report of the 9/11 Commission calls for a majorrestructuring of the U.S. national security framework. The 9/11Commission recommends that a newly appointed Cabinet-level nationalintelligence director have direct control over the intelligencecommunity's $40 billion annual budget, real power to coordinate theefforts of fifteen government agencies, and veto power over theindividuals named to head intelligence agencies.

In contrast, under President Bush's plan, the intelligence directorwould not have full control over budget and hiring matters. WhiteHouse spokesman Scott McClellan said the Bush administration wouldprovide Congress with more information about the proposal in comingdays, including details regarding how much authority over budgetaryand personnel matters the new national intelligence director shouldhave. The director would have "significant input" in making budgetaryrecommendations to the president, according to Andrew Card, WhiteHouse Chief of Staff. McClellan stated, "The national intelligencedirector will have the authority he or she needs to do the job."

The disagreement over the director's power is likely to be symbolic ofthe forthcoming public debate over which 9/11 Commissionrecommendations Congress should enact. Both House and Senate leaderssay they want to enact legislation prior to the November presidentialelection. However, some intelligence officials and civil libertiesorganizations warn against a Congressional rush to action withoutcareful deliberation.

It remains unclear the extent to which the critical governmentactivities of the new counterterrorism center will be subject topublic disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In addition,
questions remain about how the proposed changes would affect federalgovernment data mining efforts at the Department of Defense and othergovernment agencies. In a report released in May 2004 titled"Safeguarding Privacy in the Fight Against Terrorism," the bipartisanTechnology and Privacy Advisory Committee, created by Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld, expressed privacy concerns over governmentdata mining efforts. The report concluded that "rapid action isnecessary to address the host of government programs that involve datamining concerning U.S. persons." The report recommended that theDefense Department "should safeguard the privacy of U.S. persons whenusing data mining to fight terrorism."

President Bush's remarks on intelligence reform:

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] Court Rejects Agency Effort to Withhold CAPPS II Info From EPIC

A federal district court has refused to allow the TransportationSecurity Administration (TSA) to withhold factual information withindeliberative, nonfinal agency documents concerning the ComputerAssisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II).

In August 2003 EPIC requested, among other information, any privacyimpact assessments the agency had performed for CAPPS II. TheE-Government Act of 2002 requires an agency to perform a privacyimpact assessment before developing or procuring informationtechnology that collects, maintains or disseminates identifiableinformation.

TSA agreed to process the documents, but failed to respond to EPIC'srequest for expedited processing. In September 2003, EPIC applied foran emergency court order requiring TSA immediately to release therequested documents. TSA relented and agreed to process the materialby September 25, 2003, five days before public comments were due onTSA's proposed Privacy Act notice for CAPPS II. TSA then refused torelease the documents, claiming that they were exempt from disclosureunder the Freedom of Information Act because they were not final andbecause CAPPS II was "still evolving." The agency further maintainedthat no factual material, which must be disclosed under law, couldpossibly be released to EPIC because "facts are necessarilyinextricably intertwined with policy-making processes," and to releasethem would "expose the deliberative process."

In a 21-page opinion issued on August 2, 2004, Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly determined that drafts of privacy impact assessmentsare protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,
but rejected the government's claim that no factual material could beseparated from exempt material. Noting that the government failed tosatisfy its burden to "specify in detail which portions of thedocument are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt," JudgeKollar-Kotelly concluded that if the agency's "stated rationale,
without further detail or explanation, could be the sole justificationfor non-segregability, the segregability requirement . . . would begutted. . . . This Circuit has expressly provided that suchconclusory language is insufficient to justify a finding ofnon-segregability."

Judge Kollar-Kotelly has ordered the agency to review the documentsagain for factual information that can be separated from protectedmaterial, or to explain to the court why it is unable to do so.

The order comes just days after the Department of Homeland Securityadmitted that CAPPS II is too flawed to go forward, and the agency isconsidering other aviation security options.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision:

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

[4] Agencies Issue Rules on Homeless Tracking; Bank Customer ID

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued final rulesto implement Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS), programsthat track recipients of benefits to assess the number of personsreceiving care, and to improve efficiency of services to the poor.
While well intentioned, the implementation of HMIS can be highlyprivacy invasive.

In comments to the agency, eight civil liberties groups joined EPIC inopposing unnecessarily invasive aspects of HMIS, including provisionsgiving law enforcement broad access to data, the collection of theSocial Security Number from the homeless, and a proposal that domesticviolence victims be included in the tracking system. The groups alsoargued that the agency should take a census-style "snapshot" of thehomeless population rather than a constant enumeration of homelessindividuals. In its final rule, the agency decided to proceed withcollection of the Social Security Number and a full enumeration of thehomeless, including domestic violence victims. However, the finalrule incorporates tighter controls over law enforcement access andcontains significant new protections for privacy.

Under the final rule, law enforcement access provisions are clearerand offer more detail to benefits providers. Additionally, whereasthe proposed rule would allow some government agents to access anentire HMIS database without a warrant, the final rule limits thecontexts in which and the amount of data that law enforcement canobtain. The rule articulates a full set of fair information practicesfor protection of HMIS data, including collection limitation, purposespecification, use limitation, purpose specification, openness, accessand correction, and accountability. The rule also articulates atwo-tiered approach to security, where benefits providers must complywith a floor of requirements but may adopt heightened procedures whereappropriate.

In a separate proceeding, federal banking regulators issued a finalrule requiring all banks to create customer identification programsthat must be approved by the banks' board of directors. Individualsopening new deposit accounts, trust services, a safe deposit box,
credit accounts, or even an extension of credit must provide theirnames, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security Numbers underthe new rules. A bank must verify enough of this information "to forma reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the customer,"
but it need not confirm the accuracy of all the information submittedby the individual. Banks may verify using documents, such asgovernment issued identification cards, or though non-documentarymethods, such as credit reporting agency files or public databases.

Banks must also check new accounts against the Office of ForeignAssets Control database, which lists known or suspected criminalorganizations. Banks must retain both identifying information andinformation about verifying customers for five years after the accountis closed.

Bank examiners are encouraged to inspect several categories ofsuspicious accounts under the rules. They include accounts where thecustomer applied for a new taxpayer identification number and"high-risk" activities including foreign private banking and trustaccounts, accounts of foreign political officials, offshore accountsand non-face-to-face accounts.

Basic bank services, such as wire transfers, check cashing, and moneyorder sales do not trigger customer identification programs. Theregulations were promulgated under Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

HMIS Final Rule:

EPIC comments on HMIS:

Federal Reserve Customer Identification Program Rules:

[5] Congress Considers Bills to Strengthen E-Mail Privacy

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) has introduced the E-mail Privacy Act of 2004,
H.R. 4956, which would address two weaknesses in the ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act that were recently highlighted in acontroversial First Circuit case. In United States v. Councilman, thecourt found that an ISP's real-time, continuous acquisition ofsubscriber e-mail did not violate federal wiretap law. The new billwould fix this misinterpretation of the Wiretap Act as well as close along-standing loophole in the law governing stored communications thatallows an Internet Service Provider (or any electronic communicationservice provider) to read its subscribers' communications. A secondbill, the E-mail Privacy Protection Act of 2004, H.R. 4977, has beenintroduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to address the same issues.

In creating the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Congressupdated existing wiretap law to address electronic communications.
Before, only wire and oral communications were protected frominterception. The amendments extended protections againstinterception to electronic communications, and also sought toestablish legal standards for access to email in the possession of aservice provider. The changes created two categories of electroniccommunications -- those "in transit," which enjoy relatively generousprotection under the first tier of the Electronic CommunicationsPrivacy Act (the Wiretap Act), and those "in storage," which receive alesser degree of legal protection under the second tier of theElectronic Communications Privacy Act (the Stored Communications Act).
The categories that resulted from the amendments were viewed ascomplimentary efforts to protect the privacy of electroniccommunications. The tiering of communications resulted more from theeffort to address specific concerns -- such as extending protectionsto electronic communications and creating safeguards for storedcommunications -- than to formally categorize the privacy protectionfor each type of information.

The Councilman case involved the conduct of Interloc, an onlineliterary clearinghouse that sought to pair its subscribers -- rare andused book dealers -- with book buyers. Brad Councilman, formerexecutive of the company, directed Interloc employees to writecomputer code to intercept and copy all incoming communications to the subscriber book dealers, for whom Interloc providede-mail service. According to the indictment, the Interloc systemsadministrator wrote a revision to the mail processing code thatintercepted, copied and stored all incoming messages from Amazon.combefore they were delivered to the subscribers. Councilman was chargedwith violating the Wiretap Act. However, because the messages were in"temporary storage" while on the Interloc e-mail server -- momentarilybefore being made available to subscribers -- the court held that themessages were not "intercepted" in violation of the Wiretap Act.

The House bills seek to correct the First Circuit's narrowinterpretation of the provision by clarifying the language, thusreflecting the Congressional intent of the Electronic CommunicationsPrivacy Act: the real-time, continuous acquisition of messages whilethey are in transit -- even if stored momentarily during the course oftransmission -- should be an "interception" under the Wiretap Act.
H.R. 4956 appears to address the issue more directly than H.R. 4977 bymodifying the definition of "interception." Without thesemodifications, and using the anomalous interpretation of the FirstCircuit, law enforcement may be able to gain such real-time,
continuous acquisition of a suspect's e-mail or other electroniccommunications without following the strict requirements for a wiretapcourt order.

Counterintuitively, Brad Councilman could not be charged under thesecond tier of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the StoredCommunications Act. Both the Wiretap Act and the StoredCommunications Act contain a "service provider exception," allowingthe service provider to monitor subscriber communications undercertain circumstances. The exception in the Wiretap Act allows theprovider to monitor communications to the extent necessary for theprovision of the service (e.g. ensuring that phone line quality issufficient). However, the Stored Communications Act exception allowsproviders -- including ISPs -- to monitor communications without anysuch qualification. This extremely broad exception allowed Councilmanto escape liability under the Stored Communications Act as well. Thebills seek to close this loophole by modifying the service providerexception language in the Stored Communications Act to approximatethat of the Wiretap Act.

H.R. 4956, the E-mail Privacy Act of 2004:

H.R. 4977, the E-mail Privacy Protection Act of 2004:

The opinion in United States v. Councilman:

For more information about wiretap law, see EPIC's Wiretap Page:

[6] News in Brief

Privacy International recently held its sixth annual United KingdomBig Brother Awards ceremony, honoring the year's most egregiousviolators of privacy in the UK. Privacy International acceptednominations from the public in five categories: Worst Public Servant,
Most Invasive Company, Most Appalling Project, Most Heinous GovernmentOrganisation, and Lifetime Menace Award. The nominees were judged bya panel of lawyers, academics, consultants, journalists and civilrights activists. Winners received a golden award in the shape of aboot stamping on a human head, an image drawn from George Orwell'snovel 1984. The Lifetime Menace Award went to the United StatesVisitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) becauseof its offensive and invasive plan to fingerprint all visitors to theUnited States beginning in September 2004. The unusual nomination ofa United States initiative came as a result of the near-total silenceof both the U.S. and UK governments regarding implementation of thisprogram.

Privacy International's 2004 UK Big Brother Awards page:

For more information about US-VISIT, see EPIC's US-VISIT Page:

EPIC has joined a coalition of groups filing comments with the FederalCommunications Commission on the allocation of spectrum. Thecomments, drafted by the Media Access Project, support the opening ofthe 3650-3700 MHz band to unlicensed spectrum access, but ask theCommission to address the privacy issues that will be raised by suchaction.

The comments were submitted in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking, which proposed that every device using this spectrum shouldbroadcast identification information, including contact information ofthe owner or operator of the device. This requirement would mean thatan individual accessing this spectrum on his laptop would have tobroadcast his name and e-mail address. The coalition's commentsexplain why such identification is both unnecessary and harmful to theprivacy of the spectrum user.

Coalition comments to the Federal Communications Commission:

A coalition of journalistic and civil liberties organizations hasfiled a "friend of the court" brief in support of EPIC's suit againstthe Department of Justice in a federal appeals court. EPIC is seekingreversal of a lower court's refusal to expedite processing of aFreedom of Information Act request seeking information about thecoordinated lobbying efforts of federal prosecutors to opposelegislation affecting the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. EPIC'sappeal concerns questions about what a Freedom of Information Actrequestor must demonstrate in order to receive expedited processing.
The coalition's interest in the appeal stems from the important roleexpedited processing plays in disseminating timely governmentalinformation in cases in which there is an urgency to inform thepublic. A decision by the appeals court will likely have asubstantial impact on the ability of requestors to obtain expeditedprocessing.

Coalition's amicus brief:

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

Congress is poised to loosen federal regulations protectingindividuals from unsolicited commercial fax messages, known as "junkfaxes." The House has already passed legislation eliminating aFederal Communications Commission regulation that would require junkfaxers to obtain written consent before transmitting messages. TheHouse bill also creates an established business relationship exemptionto the consent requirement, allowing any business to junk fax anyonewho makes any purchase for eternity. The Senate Commerce Committeeapproved identical legislation, but that version of the bill is likelyto be amended to limit the duration of the established businessrelationship exemption.

In response to House and Senate staff requests for advice on junkfaxing, EPIC recommended that the Federal Communications Commissionshould be empowered to reestablish the written consent requirementwith respect to junk faxers who routinely violate the law. However,
because of procedural rules invoked in the Senate Commerce Committee,
no amendments to the legislation were considered.

S. 2603, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004:

H.R. 4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: A Little Knowledge

A Little Knowledge: Privacy, Security, and Public Information AfterSeptember 11, Peter M. Shane, John Podesta and Richard C. Leone, eds.
(The Century Foundation 2004).
"Drawn from the proceedings of the 'Security, Technology, and Privacy'
conference, A Little Knowledge looks at the different ways publicsecurity and the individual's right to privacy have been placed atodds after September 11. Chapters address such specific topics as howtightening security and limiting communication can harm Americanparticipation in the international scientific community; howrestricting public access to information can result in a nation ofuninformed and unengaged citizens; and how American data security andprivacy practices compare with those of other nations. Cosponsored byCarnegie Mellon University's Heinz School and the GeorgetownUniversity Law Center. Featuring John Podesta on 'Governing inSecret'; Alice P. Gast on restricting the flow of scientificinformation; Baruch Fischhoff on disclosing risks; Victor W. Weedn ongovernment risk communications; George Duncan on optimizing privacyand utility in the management of online databases; Joel R. Reidenbergon international approaches to privacy; Sally Katzen on publicinformation rights; and Peter M. Shane on the new technologies anddemocratic empowerment."

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

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:

Transatlantic In-Security: Information, Privacy, and the Challenge ofSecurity in US-EU Relations. The American Consortium on EU Studies.
August 17, 2004. Washington, DC. E-mail lharris at

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:

The Internet and the Law -- A Global Conversation. Law & TechnologyProgram, University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario. October 1-2, 2004.
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:

2004 Big Brother Awards Switzerland. October 16, 2004. Lucerne,
Switzerland. For more information:

DRM 2004: The Fourth ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management.
Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group onSecurity, Audit and Control. October 25, 2004. Washington, DC. Formore info:

2004 Big Brother Awards Austria. October 26, 2004. Vienna, Austria.
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:

2004 Big Brother Awards Germany. October 29, 2004. Bielefeld,
Germany. 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 11.15


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback