WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 16

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

EPIC Alert 11.16 [2004] EPICAlert 16


Volume 11.16 August 27, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] Homeland Security To Test New Passenger Prescreening System
[2] FCC Imposes Rules on Internet Telephony; Bans Wireless Spam
[3] Federal Appeals Court Upholds Compelled DNA Production
[4] EPIC Files Amicus Brief Arguing Against Secret Law
[5] EPIC Urges Privacy Protections for Auto Black Boxes
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Whistleblowing Around the World
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Homeland Security To Test New Passenger Prescreening System

The Department of Homeland Security's Assistant Secretary for theTransportation Security Administration David Stone announced yesterdaythat the government will begin testing Secure Flight, its newpassenger prescreening system, in November. The program'sintroduction comes just a few weeks after TSA scrapped plans for itspredecessor, the second generation Computer Assisted PassengerPrescreening System (CAPPS II), in part due to privacy concerns.
Admiral Stone stated that commercial airlines will be ordered inSeptember to turn over "historical" PNR data for TSA to use in thetesting phase of Secure Flight.

The new program, slated for deployment early next year, will focus oncomparing Passenger Name Records (PNRs) against expanded "selectee"
and "no fly" lists maintained by the government. If a traveler's PNRmatches information on a watch list, commercial data aggregators willbe relied upon to verify the traveler's identity. TSA will administerthe program, removing all passenger screening responsibility from theairlines.

Though TSA plans to implement a redress process for travelersimproperly flagged by Secure Flight, it is unclear how this processwill work. The government has long used "selectee" and "no fly" listsfor aviation security purposes, but passengers have experienced greatdifficulty clearing their names when improperly flagged. In 2002,
EPIC obtained through the Freedom of Information Act dozens ofcomplaint letters sent to TSA by irate passengers who felt they hadbeen incorrectly identified for additional security or were deniedboarding because of the watch lists. The complaints describe thebureaucratic maze passengers encounter if they happen to be mistakenfor individuals on the list, as well as the difficulty they encountertrying to exonerate themselves.

Even members of Congress have found themselves targeted due to thewatch lists. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) recently reported in aSenate Judiciary Committee hearing on border security that on multipleoccasions airline agents have tried to prevent him from boardingflights because his name appeared on a watch list. He was haltedthree times before his staff called TSA, and afterwards continued tobe stalled at the gate. Senator Kennedy was forced to call HomelandSecurity Secretary Tom Ridge in order to clear his name, an optionavailable to very few travelers. The name on the watch listpreventing Kennedy's travel was apparently "T. Kennedy." Rep. JohnLewis (D-GA) also has said he is on a watch list, barred from buyingelectronic tickets, and subject to extensive searches every time heboards a flight.

EPIC FOIA documents on "selectee" and "no fly" watch lists:

For more information about travel privacy and CAPPS II, see EPIC'sPassenger Profiling Page:

[2] FCC Imposes Rules on Internet Telephony; Bans Wireless Spam

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a ruling onwiretapping of Internet telephony and a prohibition of commerciale-mail sent to wireless devices. The Commission has tentativelydetermined that Internet phone calls are subject to wiretapping by lawenforcement under the Communications Assistance for Law EnforcementAct (CALEA). The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, and Drug Enforcement Administration filed a jointpetition in March 2004 requesting that Internet telephony be subjectto CALEA. The Commission has at least tentatively concluded thatCALEA applies to facilities-based providers of any type of broadbandInternet access service -- including wireline, cable modem, satellite,
wireless, and powerline -- and to managed or mediated Voice overInternet Protocol (VoIP) services. This determination is based on theCommission's proposal that these services are "a replacement for asubstantial portion of the local telephone exchange service." TheCommission now seeks comment from carriers as to their obligations andthe feasibility of this proposed ruling.

EPIC filed comments with the Commission earlier this year assertingthat Internet telephony should not be subject to CALEA. EPIC opposesthe extension of CALEA to such services on the ground that itimpermissibly seeks to extend the narrow, legislatively authorizedreach of the requirements of the law. Any such expansion of CALEA'sreach, should it be deemed necessary, must be effectuated by Congressrather than the Commission. This is particularly the case in light ofthe unique privacy issues that arise when surveillance capabilitiesare mandated for packet-mode communications. Further, the lawenforcement agencies petitioning the Commission have not demonstratedthat the existing CALEA regime is in any way inadequate to addresstheir needs.

The Commission has also ruled that marketers cannot send commerciale-mail to wireless devices without the explicit consent of theconsumer. The Commission adopted a general prohibition on sendingcommercial messages to wireless devices (to any address referencing anInternet domain associated with wireless subscriber messagingservices). The ruling is consistent with comments filed by EPIC inApril arguing that marketers cannot send commercial e-mail to wirelessdevices without the explicit consent of the consumer. These new ruleswill be enforced under the CAN-SPAM Act, legislation enacted last yearwhich has so far proved an ineffective protection against spam. Ithas done little to decrease the amount of spam sent by bulk e-mailers,
despite cases having been filed against alleged spammers by Microsoft,
Earthlink, AOL and Yahoo. Under CAN-SPAM, only governments andInternet Service Providers are able to use the law, which makeslawsuits brought by private organizations ineffective. To combat theproblem of spam, EPIC favors "opt-in" mailing lists, a private rightof action for consumers, and freedom for states to pursue spammers,
combined with technical measures and international cooperation.

FCC's rulemaking on CALEA:

FCC news release on wireless spam:

EPIC's CALEA comments:

EPIC's wireless spam comments:

[3] Federal Appeals Court Upholds Compelled DNA Production

In a close 6-5 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hasdetermined that a parolee can be forced to provide a DNA sample forthe FBI's vast national DNA database, even when there is no suspicionthat he has committed a crime in addition to the one for which he hasserved his time.

In this case, Thomas Cameron Kincade argued that the DNA AnalysisBacklog Elimination Act of 2000 violates Fourth Amendment guaranteesagainst unreasonable search and seizure. The DNA Act requires certainfelons and parolees to submit a sample of their DNA to the government.
The DNA Act does not require suspicion that an individual will commitor has committed another offense, nor that the sample be taken inorder to aid in the investigation of a particular crime. Refusal toprovide a DNA sample is a misdemeanor. Once the sample is taken andanalyzed, a DNA profile is created and added to the Combined DNA IndexSystem (CODIS) and made available to law enforcement by the FBI. InMarch, EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of Mr.
Kincade, arguing that DNA contains far more information than afingerprint and that, in the absence of privacy safeguards, a DNAsample collected for one purpose could be used in the future forunrelated purposes.

In determining that the Fourth Amendment allows compelled DNAprofiling of parolees who are not suspected of having committed anadditional crime, Judge O'Scannlain's majority opinion noted thatparolees are not entitled to the full extent of constitutionalprotections enjoyed by the public. The court concluded that thepublic interest served by collecting parolees' DNA outweighedparolees' "substantially diminished expectations of privacy" and "theminimal intrusion occasioned by blood sampling." A concurring opinionby Judge Gould emphasized that the court had not determined the rightsof an individual "who has fully paid his or her debt to society, whohas completely served his or her term, and who has left the penalsystem . . . . Once those previously on supervised release havewholly cleared their debt to society, the question must be raised:
'Should the CODIS entry be erased?'" Judge Gould noted that thisquestion would have to be addressed in a future case.

Judge Reinhardt's lengthy dissent (joined by Judge Pregerson, JudgeKozinski, and Judge Wardlaw) chastised the majority's holding,
stating, "Never has the [Supreme] Court approved of the government'sconstruction of a permanent governmental database built from generalsuspicionless searches and designed for use in the investigation andprosecution of criminal offenses." Judge Reinhardt went on tocaution, "Privacy erodes first at the margins, but once eliminated,
its protections are lost for good, and the resulting damage is rarely,
if ever, undone. Today, the court has opted for comprehensive DNAprofiling of the least protected among us, and in so doing, hasjeopardized us all."

For more information about the case, see EPIC's United States v.
Kincade Page:

EPIC's amicus brief:

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

[4] EPIC Files Amicus Brief Arguing Against Secret Law

EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in Gilmore v. Ashcroft, acase before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging thegovernment's unpublished law or regulation requiring passengers topresent identification to fly on commercial airlines. John Gilmoreargues that the requirement violates numerous constitutionalprotections, including the rights to travel, petition and freelyassemble, be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and haveaccess to due process of law.

Mr. Gilmore is challenging the dismissal of his case in March by afederal district court. In that proceeding, the government not onlyrefused to provide the court with the text of the law or regulationrequiring airline passengers to show identification, but declined evento acknowledge whether the requirement exists. Furthermore, thedistrict court judge accepted the government's assurance that thecourt did not have jurisdiction to review the law or regulation,
failing to independently determine the legal basis for that claim.

In its amicus brief, EPIC argued that the district court's failure toexamine the government's authority to enforce the law or regulationallows the government to impose secret law upon the public, thusavoiding meaningful review by courts as required by the Constitution.
"Compelled identification stemming from secret law violates dueprocess safeguards because it is inherently vague and provides nomeans for ordinary people or reviewing courts to meaningfullydetermine which procedures are legal or proper," EPIC wrote. Thebrief urged the Ninth Circuit to send the case back to the districtcourt to determine whether the government's identification requirementis lawful.

Gilmore v. Ashcroft web site:

EPIC's amicus brief:

For more information about travel privacy, see EPIC's PassengerProfiling Page:

[5] EPIC Urges Privacy Protections for Auto Black Boxes

In formal comments, EPIC urged the National Highway TransportationSecurity Administration (NHTSA) to create privacy protections for"Event Data Recorders," (EDRs) black boxes in vehicles that recordcrash data. The comments were made in response to a federalrulemaking calling for standardization of EDR data. EPIC argued thatwith standardization of data collection, the agency has a duty tocreate meaningful privacy protections. The agency's current plan toprotect privacy by putting a short disclosure in the owner's manualfalls fall short of this duty.

EPIC argued that EDRs present serious privacy issues that have beendeveloping incrementally. Just two months ago, NHTSA claimed that itdid not intend to require manufacturers to install EDRs. Earlier thismonth, however, the National Transportation Safety Board called formandatory EDR installation following the investigation of the 2003accident involving an elderly driver that resulted in ten deaths.
Auto insurers are now offering plans in which EDR-like devicesroutinely monitor drivers. And there is the growing risk associatedwith EDRs connected to communications systems, as they can becomeplatforms for commercial or law enforcement monitoring (see EPIC Alert10.24).

EPIC argued that requiring EDR installation together withstandardizing the EDR data format would create a vastgovernment-mandated data collection regime that demands privacyprotection. Specifically, EPIC recommended that the car owner beexplicitly recognized as the owner of the EDR data and thataffirmative consent be obtained before the data is accessed. Withrespect to EDRs that can access communications systems, similar toOnStar or ATX, EPIC recommended that the device not initiatecommunication unless an accident is detected or if the driver uses amanual feature to initiate communications for purposes of transmittingdriving data.

EPIC comments on EDR data standardization:

NHTSA request for comment:

[6] News in Brief

EPIC joined a coalition of more than 20 civil liberties organizationsin sending a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, asking thelaw enforcement agency to explain its acquisition and use ofstatistical census data on Arab Americans. The coalition also calledfor a formal documented investigation and Congressional hearings intothe matter. The letter was written in response to heavily redacteddocuments obtained by EPIC through the Freedom of Information Actrevealing that the Census Bureau gave the Department of HomelandSecurity Customs and Border Protection statistical information onpeople who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arabancestry.

The coalition letter states that the provision of census data to theDepartment of Homeland Security was "a violation of the public's trustin the census bureau, and a troubling reminder of one of our nation'sdarkest days when the sharing of similar information resulted in theinternment of Japanese Americans during World War II." The letteralso questions the Department of Homeland Security's claim that thecensus information was used only to determine language for airportsignage, calling the explanation "inconsistent with reality." Thecoalition notes that neither the Census Bureau nor Department ofHomeland Security has shown that similar information concerning peopleof other ethnicities was requested for airport signage purposes.

Coalition letter:

FOIA documents obtained by EPIC from the Census Bureau:

For more information about privacy of census information, see EPIC'sCensus Privacy Page:

U.S. District Judge Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that documents relatingto a classified contract between the Federal Bureau of Investigationand ChoicePoint, a commercial data broker, is subject to the Freedomof Information Act. Documents already released indicate that thecontract concerns a secret, sole-source agreement between ChoicePointand the government. The documents are heavily redacted, but onediscusses the following agreement: "The Criminal InvestigativeDivision (CID) [redacted] has a requirement to conduct a feasibilitystudy for a prototype methodology to meet the requirements of theFederal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI), [redacted] Program."
ChoicePoint employees with access to the FBI facility housing theprototype had to have secret-level security clearances.

All of the over 1,500 pages of documents obtained by EPIC onChoicePoint are online, and EPIC Associate Director Chris Hoofnaglerecently published a law journal article analyzing the documents.

District court order:

Documents discussing the secret ChoicePoint prototype:

For more information about the case, see the EPIC ChoicePoint Page:

EPIC and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse filed comments suggestingprivacy improvements to a proposed Postal Service system that usescommercial databases to improve delivery rates. The Postal Service's"Distribution Quality Improvement" program will use a commerciallyavailable name and address database to improve processing ofinaccurate, incomplete, or illegible mailpieces. Informationavailable on the mailpiece will be matched against the database fornames and address matches, and where a match if found, the PostalService will spray an accurate delivery barcode onto the mailpiece.

The Postal Service carefully designed the system with privacy andsecurity in mind. However, EPIC and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse didsuggest that the commercial data provider voluntarily abide by aseries of Fair Information Practices in all of their businessfunctions. The groups argued that the Postal Service has a uniqueopportunity to promote best practices in the commercial database fieldby choosing a vendor that promises to protect privacy. The groupsalso commented that many Americans would benefit from more controlover the distribution of junk mail. Noting that standard techniquesto avoid junk mail are limited in effectiveness, and the recentsuccess of the telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry, the Postal Servicewas urged to explore a Do-Not-Mail Registry to block saturationmailings and individually addressed commercial solicitations.

Comments to the U.S. Postal Service on Distribution QualityImprovement:

U.S. Postal Service request for comment on Distribution QualityImprovement:

For more information about mail privacy, see the EPIC Postal PrivacyPage:

An Army Inspector General report obtained through the Freedom ofInformation Act by journalist Ryan Singel has concluded that neitherthe Defense Department nor defense contractor Torch Concepts violatedthe Privacy Act by using of millions of JetBlue Airways passengerrecords to conduct a military data mining project without thepassengers' knowledge or consent. The Inspector General'sdetermination was based upon the Privacy Act's protection only of"systems of records," defined as groups of "any records under thecontrol of any agency from which information is retrieved by the nameof the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or otheridentifying particular assigned to the individual." According to thereport, Torch Concepts did not run afoul of the Privacy Act because itdid not use names or other specific identifiers to access passengerinformation in databases. Likewise, the Inspector General found thatTorch Concepts' disclosure of some passengers' addresses, SocialSecurity Numbers, and dates of birth during a presentation at aconference did not violate the Privacy Act because the information wasnot derived from a "system of records." The disclosure did, however,
violate Torch Concepts' contract to perform the data mining work.

The Army Inspector General's report:

For more information about air travel data privacy, see EPIC'sPassenger Profiling Page:

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin discussed Gmail, anadvertising-supported web mail system that engages in "contentextraction" in order to target ads to subscribers, in an interviewwith Playboy Magazine. Page and Brin clumsily avoided pointedquestions raised by Playboy regarding the privacy implications of thesystem. A portion of the interview is reproduced below.

"PLAYBOY: The Electronic Privacy Information Center equates suchmonitoring with a telephone operator listening to your conversationsand pitching ads while you talk.

"BRIN: That's what Hotmail and Yahoo do, don't forget. They have bigads that interfere with your ability to use your mail. Our ads aremore discreet and off to the side. Yes, the ads are related to whatyou are looking at, but that can make them more useful.

"PAGE: During Gmail tests, people bought lots of things using the ads.

"BRIN: Today I got a message from a friend saying I should prepare atoast for another friend's birthday party. Off to the side were twowebsites I could go to that help prepare speeches. I like to make upmy own speeches, but it's a useful link if I want to take advantage ofit.

"PLAYBOY: Even that sounds ominous. We may not want anyone -- or anymachine -- knowing we're giving a speech at a friend's birthday party.

"BRIN: Any web mail service will scan your e-mail. It scans it inorder to show it to you; it scans it for spam. All I can say is thatwe are very up-front about it. That's an important principle ofours."

Full Playboy interview:

For more information about Gmail, see the EPIC Gmail FAQ:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: Whistleblowing Around the World

Whistleblowing Around the World: Law, Culture, and Practice, RichardCalland and Guy Dehn eds. (Open Democracy Advice Center and PublicConcern at Work 2004).

In lamenting the restrictions on freedom caused by "petty coercion,"
Marilynne Robinson recently wrote, "A successful autocracy rests onthe universal failure of individual courage. In a democracy,
abdications of conscience are never trivial. The demoralize politics,
debilitate candor, and disrupt thought."

It takes a lot of individual courage to be a whistleblower. Those whoquestion corrupt practices are subjected to ridicule, loss of work,
and even physical attack. We ought to be more grateful towhistleblowers.

In Whistleblowing Around the World, four whistleblowers recount theirexperiences in exposing to the public both government andprivate-sector wrongdoing. The book traces the stories of SherronWatkins, an Enron whistleblower; Victoria Johnson, who exposedcorruption in the Cape Town government; Dr. Jiang Yanyong, whopublicized the SARS epidemic in China; and Harry Templeton, whochallenged the plundering of pension funds.

The book analyzes American, British, Japanese and South African policyapproaches to whistleblowing. It considers the forces that facilitateand prevent legitimate whistleblowing in different cultures. Itdiscusses the roles of employers, the state, the media, the law andcivil society and offers advice to practitioners, policymakers, andactivists.

- Chris Jay Hoofnagle

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

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:

Protection of Children Online and Review of the Safe HarbourAgreement. British Institute of International and Comparative Law2004 Data Protection Research and Policy Group Series. September 22,
2004. London, UK. For more information:

Online Privacy: Choice of Law. British Institute of International andComparative Law Data Protection Research and Policy Group. September23, 2004. London, UK. 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:

IAPP Privacy and National Security Forum. International Associationof Privacy Professionals. September 30, 2004. Washington, DC. Formore 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:

IAPP Entertainment and Privacy Forum. International Association ofPrivacy Professionals. October 7, 2004. Los Angeles, CA. For moreinformation:

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:

Private and Private International Law Issues Raised by ElectronicCommerce. The Hague Conference on Private International Law, theNetherlands Government and the International Chamber of Commerce.
October 26-27, 2004. The Hague, Netherlands. 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:

The 2004 Isaac Pitblado Lectures: Privacy -- Another Snail in theGinger Beer. The Law Society of Manitoba, The Manitoba BarAssociation and the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law. November19-20, 2004. Manitoba, Canada. For more information:

National Security, Law Enforcement and Data Protection. BritishInstitute of International and Comparative Law Data ProtectionResearch and Policy Group. December 8, 2004. London, UK. For moreinformation:

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 11.16


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback