WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 18

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

EPIC Alert 11.18 [2004] EPICAlert 18


Volume 11.18 September 24, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] Poland Conference Examines Privacy in a New Era
[2] Gov't Details Secure Flight; Documents Show CAPPS II Mission Creep
[3] Wireless Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate
[4] EPIC Challenges Dismissal of Privacy Claim Against Northwest
[5] EPIC Testifies on Voting and Privacy
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Poland Conference Examines Privacy in a New Era

The Public Voice hosted "Privacy in a New Era: Challenges,
Opportunities, and Partnerships" on September 13 in Wroclaw, Poland.
The conference provided an opportunity for civil society leaders andacademic experts to meet with European data protection authorities andexplore emerging challenges to the protection of personal privacy. Theconference was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of theInternational Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. The event wasorganized by EPIC, Privacy International, and the European DigitalRights Initiative.

Conference participants came from fifteen countries, seven of whichare New European Union Member States. Several privacy commissionersparticipated in the conference, including Peter Hustinx, European DataProtection Supervisor; Dr. Ewa Kulesza, Inspector General for PersonalData Protection in Poland; Karel Neuwirt, Data Protection Commissionerfor the Czech Republic; Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner forCanada; David Loukidales, Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia,
Canada; Raymond Tang, Privacy Commissioner for Hong Kong; and FrankWork, Information and Privacy Commissioner for Alberta, Canada.

Karel Neuwirt, Data Protection Commissioner for the Czech Republic,
spoke about the development of privacy protection, the relevantinternational instruments, and the establishment of the dataprotection authority in the Czech Republic. Mr. Neuwirt emphasizedthe educative role of his office. "Education is an effective tool ofenforcement for data protection principles," he said.

Gus Hosein of Privacy International discussed the relationship betweencivil society groups and data protection authorities. Hosein pointedto several successful collaborations as well as important efforts thatdata protection authorities have taken to safeguard privacy, andrecommended that civil society organizations acknowledge theseefforts. At the same time, he said, data protection authorities mustpursue more campaigns to maintain public support.

Professor Arwid Mednis of the University of Wroclaw explored the legalbasis of the right to privacy, with a particular emphasis on thedevelopment of privacy standards within the Council of Europe and theEuropean Union. Professor Mednis looked in particular at recentdevelopments in privacy law and some of the new challenges resultingfrom efforts to combat computer crime and to fight terrorism.

Bogdan Manolea described how he established the Association for theBest Use of Electronic Services (ABUSE), the first association ofinformation service providers in Romania. He examined the roots ofprivacy and the current threats to privacy, including theestablishment of the Integrated Informational System, a centralizeddatabase which may become the electronic arm of the RomanianIntelligence Service. Manolea suggested several strategies foreffective privacy protection, including the creation of an independentprivacy office, awareness campaigns, and concrete programs incooperation with civil society organizations.

Ivan Székely of the Open Society Archives at Central EuropeanUniversity in Hungary candidly assessed the work of civil societygroups in the data protection field. He discussed the need todistinguish real civil society organizations from front groups, aswell as the complimentary roles of expert privacy groups and radicalprivacy groups. He made recommendations about how to developeffective public education campaigns, including the need to developphrases and themes that speak to a broad public.

Conference web site:

The Public Voice:

Privacy International:

European Digital Rights Initiative:

[2] Gov't Details Secure Flight; Documents Show CAPPS II Mission Creep

The Transportation Security Administration has released moreinformation about Secure Flight, the government's new passengerprescreening initiative which is being developed to replace thecontroversial second generation Computer Assisted PassengerPrescreening System (CAPPS II). CAPPS II was dropped just months agodue to unresolvable concerns about the program's effectiveness andimplications for individual privacy.

As described by the TSA, Secure Flight will compare Passenger NameRecords (PNRs) against information compiled by the Terrorist ScreeningCenter, which will include expanded "selectee" and "no fly" lists. TSAwill also seek to identify "suspicious indicators associated withtravel behavior" in passengers' itinerary PNR data. Furthermore, theagency is planning to test the use of commercial databases to verifythe accuracy of information provided by travelers. TSA willadminister the program, removing all passenger screeningresponsibility from the airlines. The agency has issued a proposedorder that directs airlines to turn over passenger records from June2004 so that Secure Flight can be tested this fall.

Like its predecessor, Secure Flight has been exempted from crucialprovisions of the Privacy Act, which will severely limit the rightsindividuals typically would have in the personal information thegovernment maintains about them. For instance, Secure Flight maycollect and use personal information irrelevant and unnecessary foraviation security. Furthermore, passengers will have no judiciallyenforceable rights to access and correct the personal informationmaintained about them for the program.

TSA assures the public, however, that "upon completion of the testingphase, and before Secure Flight is operational, TSA will establishcomprehensive passenger redress procedures and personal data and civilliberties protections for the Secure Flight program." No detailsabout these protections are available, nor information about how longTSA will keep PNR data that it collects for Secure Flight, even thoughthe agency intends to launch the program early next year.

In related news, EPIC's Freedom of Information Act litigation with theTSA has revealed three heavily redacted draft privacy impactassessments the agency performed last year for CAPPS II. The drafts,
dated April 17, 2003, July 29, 2003, and July 30 2003, reflect adramatic expansion over just three and a half months in the wayspassenger information collected for the program would have been shared.

Privacy Act notice for Secure Flight:

Secure Flight privacy impact assessment:

Proposed order directing airlines to turn over June 2004 passengerrecords:

Privacy impact assessments obtained through the FOIA showing CAPPS IImission creep:

[3] Wireless Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate

The Senate Commerce Committee has approved S. 1963, the Wireless 411Privacy Act. Authored by Senators Specter (R-PA) and Boxer (D-CA),
the legislation would require wireless carriers to obtain consentbefore listing current subscribers a wireless directory, but newsubscribers could be listed on an opt-out basis. The bill prohibitscharging for listing or for revoking a listing. Representatives Pitts(R-PA) and Markey (D-MA) have introduced companion legislation in theHouse as H.R. 3558.

Earlier in the week, EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg testifiedbefore the Committee on the need to create privacy protections for awireless phone number directory being created by Qsent for wirelessproviders, AT&T, Sprint, Cingular, T-Mobile, Nextel, and ALLTEL. Whilegiving individuals a convenient way to find wireless phone numbers,
such a directory may subject users to unwanted telemarketing, spam,
viruses, junk faxes, and harassing calls.

EPIC made the case that opt-in and other legislative protections areneeded because many profitable and reputable companies have promisedstrong privacy safeguards only to renege with the adoption of newbusiness models. Furthermore, although the wireless industry's tradegroup, CTIA, has promised that the system will be opt-in, theirrepresentations are illusory because the carriers themselves will setthe privacy practices for the wireless directory. Carriers would befree to adopt opt-out standards, and thus far, the participatingcarriers have been reticent and were unwilling to testify before theCommittee.

Not so with Verizon Wireless. In its testimony, the company stronglyopposed the creation of a wireless directory, calling it a "dumb idea"
and claiming that opt-in is not enough to protect subscribers' privacyrights. It pledged not to participate in the wireless directory,
noting that those who wish to be listed can do so free online, and fora small charge in print directories.

Qsent, the company tasked to architect the wireless directory,
testified that consumers will get to choose to be listed, but stoppedshort of using the term "opt-in." The company claimed that wirelessnumbers will only be distributed to those who call "411," and that itwill never appear in print or electronic form, nor will it beavailable on the Internet. The company also promised securitysafeguards for the wireless directory. However, it is unclear whatrecourse exists if there is accidental disclosure or security breach.
In the wireline context, the disclosure of an unpublished or unlistednumber usually results in the carrier issuing a new phone number toaffected subscribers. It is unclear whether wireless users will enjoythat benefit.

California is on the cusp of creating the strongest protections forwireless directory information. California AB 1733 creates opt-inrequirements for wireless directory listing and for the sale ofwireless telephone numbers. Individuals can revoke their consent tolisting at any time, and carriers could not charge consumers forlisting or for revoking a listing. AB 1733 also allows individuals tobring suit against those who deliberately violate the protections. Thebill passed the Senate and Assembly and is awaiting GovernorSchwarzenegger's signature.

EPIC testimony on Wireless Directory Privacy:

Wireless 411 Privacy Act:

California AB 1733:

[4] EPIC Challenges Dismissal of Privacy Claim Against Northwest

In a petition for review filed this week, EPIC urged the Department ofTransportation to reverse its recent decision that Northwest Airlinesdid not break the law when it disclosed millions of passenger recordsto NASA. EPIC charged that Northwest Airlines commited an unfair anddeceptive trade practice by giving passengers' personal information tothe agency in direct violation of its privacy policy.

EPIC's petition argued that Northwest's Internet privacy policyassured its customers that their sensitive personal information wouldremain protected unless the airline had a legal obligation to sharethe data with the government. The policy promised customers: "As aUser of Reservations you are in complete control of yourtravel planning needs. This includes controlling the use ofinformation you provide to Northwest Airlines, its airline affiliates,
and WorldPerks partners." According to EPIC's appeal, Northwestviolated that agreement when it voluntarily released passenger recordsto NASA for use in a now-defunct data mining study.

In an order dated September 10, the Department of Transportationinitially dismissed the complaint. The Department, which has publiclystated that it "encourages self-regulation as the least intrusive andmost efficient means of ensuring the privacy of information providedby consumers to airlines," proclaimed that in this case "Northwest hasnot violated its privacy policy, and . . . if it did, such a violationdoes not warrant the initiation of enforcement proceedings."

In its petition filed September 20, EPIC asserted that that thegovernment blatantly ignored the established test for deceptive tradepractices in declining to find that Northwest violated its privacypolicy. The petition asks the Department to reverse its dismissal,
apply the proper legal standard to the Northwest violation, andenforce the airline's privacy policy.

EPIC's petition for review of the Department of Transportation'sorder:

The Department of Transportation's order dismissing EPIC's complaintagainst Northwest:

For more information, see EPIC's Northwest disclosure page:

[5] EPIC Testifies on Voting and Privacy

EPIC Senior Policy Analyst Lillie Coney testified before the ElectionAssistance Commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee onSeptember 22 on the importance of voter privacy. Coney noted that thedelicate balance between the state's right to ensure that intimidationand election fraud are not present in public elections and the voter'sright to privacy have resulted in the development of the secret ballotand restricted zones around voting compartments. Because of thedocumented history of voter intimidation, coercion, and fraudassociated with third party knowledge of how individual voters casttheir ballots, it is important not to underestimate the importance ofvoter privacy. However, attempts to address fraud have led to voterintimidation and stringent measures to screen out illegal voters,
which result in legitimate voters being denied their right to vote.

Coney noted that elections systems rely on voluntary participation ofpoll workers and voters. The major challenge of election systems isto create ease of use in a process that is done very infrequently. Atmost the greatest voter participation is seen during presidentialelection years, which occur once every four years. Recent reports ofpoll workers struggling to deal with malfunctioning voting technologyis not new to paperless DRE voting machines. In the Florida 2000presidential election poll workers did not take malfunctioningpunchcard voting machines out of service. It was reported that 20[punchcard voting] machines in two Miami-Dade County precincts withthe highest rate of discarded punchcard ballots did not show votes forat least some candidates during a test-vote minutes before pollsopened on November 7.

Poll workers provide the human judgment used in a gatekeeper functionto determine who may vote in public elections. There is very littleif any due process accorded to voters who are judged to be invalid.
Unfortunately, the experience for voters who are in the "out group" --
minorities, new citizens, language minorities, and disabled voters --
are most at risk of being disenfranchised. Those voters notidentified with by poll workers often find the hurdles to voting aremuch higher and problematic. For example, in the State of Floridavoters erroneously included on a list of felons, who are prevented bystate law to vote, were predominately minority.

The subjective nature of the polling operation meant that some pollworkers were able to recognize the errors on the list and allowedvoters to vote, while others could or would not allow theseindividuals to vote. As little as possible should rely upon thesubjective judgment of poll workers, as gatekeepers to the ballot box,
but the focus should be on facilitating participation in the electionprocess.

According to the CalTech MIT Study "Voting: What Is What Could Be,"
between 4 and 6 million votes were lost in the 2000 election. Thestudy attributed the loss to problems with voter registration orpolling place practices and problems with ballots. In response tothis situation, the Help America Vote Act became law. Thislegislation made it a priority to making voting more accessible forall voters, especially those with disabilities or who were languageminorities. Although the law requires only one accessible votingmachine per polling location, many states have interpreted that tomean touchscreen direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines andhave adopted the technology universally for all voters and votinglocations used on Election Day.

The greatest privacy benefits of DRE voting machines accrue to thosewho are visually disabled, language minorities, or have literacychallenges. Critics of paperless DRE voting technology acknowledgethe apparent usability benefits to some voters, but point to acritical vulnerability in their design. Another privacy concern ispresented by the implementation of the voter interface, which on somemachines is done at nearly a 75-80-degree angle to the horizontal.
Current machine set up in polling locations requires that the machinesbe in full view of the poll workers. This is done in such a mannerthat the display screen is exposed to those present in the pollinglocation, including other voters. If the restricted space around DREvoting machines is too small, this would also threaten voter privacy.

The hearing was an opportunity for the committee charged with makingrecommendations on voluntary standards for election systems and votingtechnology. The committee is expected to make its recommendations tothe full Election Assistance Commission board sometime next summer foradoption and implementation in 2006.

EPIC's testimony on voting and privacy:

National Committee for Voting Integrity:

For more information about electronic voting, see EPIC's Voting Page:

[6] News in Brief

EPIC has filed suit against two federal agencies for failing torespond to Freedom of Information Act appeals regarding lawenforcement requests for completed census questionnaires or othercensus data. The Census Bureau responded to EPIC's initial Freedom ofInformation request with, among other things, a series of emailsbetween Census and the Department of Homeland Security's Customs andBorder Protection concerning special tabulations that Censuseventually created for Customs concerning people of Arab ancestry.
However, at Customs' request, all but one of its communications toCensus were blacked out. The disclosure also did not indicate whetherany other relevant communications were located but withheld. EPICappealed the decision to withhold this information to both Census andCustoms, and was forced to file suit when it did not receive adetermination from either agency within the time frame required bylaw.

EPIC's complaint:

For more information about the documents obtained by EPIC from theCensus Bureau, see EPIC's Census FOIA page:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Department ofJustice's request to seal from public view its arguments supporting anunpublished federal regulation requiring passengers to showidentification before boarding airplanes. The Justice Departmentfiled a motion requesting the court to reconsider, and informed thecourt that while it intends to file its brief in Gilmore v. Ashcroftby its September 29 deadline, the brief will not contain theinformation it wishes to keep secret, including whether the federalregulation even exists. The agency sought to make its argument infront of a closed court without appellant John Gilmore or his counselpresent.

EPIC has filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that meaningfuljudicial review is necessary to prevent the government from imposing asecret, vague law upon the public in violation of constitutional dueprocess rights.

Gilmore v. Ashcroft web site:

EPIC's amicus brief in Gilmore v. Ashcroft:

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

The Senate Commerce Committee has unanimously approved the SoftwarePrinciples Yielding Better Levels of Consumer Knowledge (SPY BLOCK)
Act, an anti-spyware bill which would prohibit the surreptitiousinstallation of software on computers. If approved by the fullSenate, the legislation will not allow software vendors to usemisleading means to induce consumers to install software, prohibitsoftware that prevents reasonable efforts to uninstall or disable it,
and outlaw installing software that automatically collects andtransmits information about the user without permission.

In June, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a similaranti-spyware bill entitled the Securely Protect Yourself Against CyberTrespass Act (SPY Act).

Software Principles Yielding Better Levels of Consumer Knowledge Act:

Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act:

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that imposes fines andprison terms of up to seven years upon individuals who intentionallyprovide inaccurate personal information to register an Internetdomain, and then use that information to commit a felony such asspamming or copyright infringement. The legislation would notpenalize individuals who provide false registration information simplyto keep their identitities anonymous or protect their information fromspammers and criminals. The bill now moves to the full Senate forconsideration.

Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act:

Chicago will link more than 2,000 cameras located in public placesthroughout the city in a network intended to spot emergencies andsuspicious behavior, Mayor Richard Daley announced earlier this month.

Most of the cameras are already installed and in use, withapproximately 1,000 located at O'Hare International Airport and otherspositioned in public locations such as schools and train platforms.
The city will install an additional 250 cameras, most of them downtownin areas the city considers high risk.

For more information about video surveillance, see ObservingSurveillance:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws


Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004 (EPIC 2004),
572 pages, $40.00.

"Deserves a place in the library of everyone who is involved in, or thinking about, litigation under the Freedom of Information Act."

- Steve Aftergood Federation of American Scientists
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. EPIC haspublished the book jointly with Access Reports and the James MadisonProject.

This 22nd edition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalistsand researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. The book drawsupon the expertise of practicing attorneys who are recognized leadersin the field. This edition includes recent case developments,
including an analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Favish, andan index to key terms.

Appendices include the text of the relevant acts and sample pleadingsfor litigators. Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws2004 adheres to the same high standards as previous editions and isintended as a guide for Freedom of Information requesters andplaintiff litigators. For those who litigate open government cases(or need to learn how to litigate them), this is an essentialreference manual.

Order Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2004 usingEPIC's secure order form:

EPIC Publications:

"FOIA 2004: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," HarryHammitt, David Sobel and Tiffany Stedman, editors (EPIC 2004). Price:

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 22ndedition 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.

"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.

"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

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 CPSR Annual Conference: Making the Grade?: A Report Card on USPolicies for the Information Society. Computer Professionals forSocial Responsibility. October 16, 2004. Washington, DC. For moreinformation:

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:

Seventh International General Online Research Conference. GermanSociety for Online Research. March 22-23, 2005. Zurich, Switzerland.
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 11.18


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback