WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 19

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

EPIC Alert 11.19 [2004] EPICAlert 19


Volume 11.19 October 8, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] Coalition Asks Congress to Deliberate 9-11 Comm. Recommendations
[2] EPIC Urges Congress to Protect Social Security Numbers
[3] Appeals Court Votes to Revisit E-Mail Interception Case
[4] Business "Free Speech" Claims Fail to Block Do-Not-Call Registry
[5] California Enacts New, Innovative Privacy Protections
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Losing America
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Coalition Asks Congress to Deliberate 9-11 Comm. Recommendations

The In Defense of Freedom Coalition sent a letter with over 40 signersto members of Congress outlining key points that should be consideredas the House and Senate drafts legislation based on the 9-11Commission recommendations. The letter defined specific areas ofconcern and made recommendations on how the goals of security andfreedom can both be attained.

Following the issuance of the 9-11 Commission's report, Congress isacting quickly to address the commission's recommendations, but theletter warned that there may be unintended negative consequences forprivacy and civil liberties if precautions are not taken. Congressshould be mindful of the known failure of current information sharingschemes to secure this nation against terrorist attacks, which havebeen deployed at the cost of civil rights and civil liberties.

The letter also urged Congress to review how the changes proposed bythe Commission may impact First Amendment freedoms, and to createappropriate checks to balance the application of new police powers.
The letter made specific recommendations in six areas: oversight,
identification requirements, accountability, transparency, and theneed for internal checks of power. The coalition advocated that thecreation of new government authority without the counterbalance ofaccountability is inconsistent with the American form of government.
Congress should, in advance of establishing any National IntelligenceAuthority or similar entity, enact criminal and civil statutorydisincentives to discourage abuse and misuse of information resources,
and to protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Theimplementation of such a system must include structural checks andbalances to preserve constitutional safeguards.

The letter also encouraged Congress to hold more hearings on theseissues and to solicit input from the many organizations who haveworked to safeguard political rights so that these and other concernscan be thoroughly explored as Congress considers the 9-11 Commission'srecommendations.

The coalition letter is available at:

In Defense of Freedom:

For more information about the 9-11 Commission recommendations, seeEPIC's 9-11 Commission Report Page:

[2] EPIC Urges Congress to Protect Social Security Numbers

In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee onConsumer Protection, EPIC associate director Chris Hoofnagle urgedMembers to support legislation regulating the collection, use, anddisclosure of individuals' Social Security Numbers (SSNs). Thehearing concerned an amended version of H.R. 2971, the Social SecurityNumber Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2003. The billwas introduced by House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social SecurityChairman Clay Shaw (R-FL), but was referred to the Commerce Committeebecause it contains provisions affecting commercial use of the SSN andbecause it empowers the Federal Trade Commission to address "coercivedisclosure," the practice requiring consumers to give up their SSNsfor access to a product or service.

H.R. 2971 is not likely to be enacted in this Congress, as the mainlegislative session comes to a close this week. However, the bill islikely to serve as a model for SSN legislation in the 109th Congress,
which will convene in January 2005. The amended version of the billcontains many recommendations made by EPIC in earlier testimony (seeEPIC Alert 11.12).

At the hearing, EPIC continued to recommend that the legislationsharply reduce government and commercial sector reliance on the SSNand that exceptions be narrowly drawn and time-limited so that theyeventually expire. The bill still contains problematic exemptions,
including one that gives credit reporting agencies wholesale access toSSNs in government files. Another exemption allows use of the SSN for"public health purposes." EPIC will continue to track thislegislation as Congress revisits the issue in 2005.

EPIC's SSN testimony:

For more information about SSN privacy, see the EPIC SSN Page:

[3] Appeals Court Votes to Revisit E-Mail Interception Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has voted to rehearits recent decision that that a company did not violate federalwiretap law when it accessed its customers' e-mail to view messagessent to them by a rival company. The court will review a panel's 2-1ruling in July that an electronic communication is not "intercepted"
if the communication is accessed while it is in temporary storage.

This case involved an online literary clearinghouse that paired rareand used book dealers with book buyers. At the direction of BradfordCouncilman, a high level officer of the company, a clearinghouseemployee wrote a revision to the mail processing code to intercept,
copy, and store all incoming messages from before they weredelivered to and read by the intended recipients. Councilman and otherclearinghouse employees accessed thousands of e-mails this way to gaina commercial advantage.

The law at issue in this case involves the 1986 amendments to federalwiretap law. Prior to the amendments, only wire and oralcommunications were protected from interception under the Wiretap Act.
The amendments extended protections against interception to electroniccommunications, and also sought to establish legal standards foraccess to e-mail in the possession of a service provider. The changescreated two categories of electronic communications -- those "intransit," which enjoy relatively generous protection under the law,
and those "in storage," which receive a lesser degree of legalprotection. The categories that resulted from the amendments wereviewed as complimentary efforts to protect the privacy of electroniccommunications. The "tiering" of communications resulted more fromthe effort to address specific concerns -- such as extendingprotections to electronic communications and creating safeguards forstored communications -- than to formally categorize the privacyprotection for each type of information.

In July, however, the First Circuit panel determined that the plainlanguage of the law showed that Congress did not intend for thewiretap law's interception provisions to apply to electroniccommunications in electronic storage. The court found that when theclearinghouse obtained the e-mails, the messages were in temporarystorage in a computer system. The panel noted that the parties hadstipulated that the e-mails were not affected while they weretransmitted through wires or cables between computers. In light ofthese findings, the panel determined that the e-mails were not intransit and subject to interception, but were instead storedcommunications. Because no "intercept" occurred, the panel held thatthe Wiretap Act could not have been violated.

EPIC joined three other civil liberties groups to file an amicus brieflast month encouraging the First Circuit to review the controversialruling. The brief, filed by the Center for Democracy and Technologyand joined also by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the AmericanLibrary Association, argued that the panel's decision failed torecognize the intent of Congress to protect the privacy of electroniccommunications, and creates serious constitutional questions under theFourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

The decision of the three-judge panel in United States v. Councilman:

The amicus brief filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology,
EPIC, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and American LibraryAssociation:

The order for rehearing en banc:

For more information about electronic surveillance, see EPIC'sWiretapping Page:

[4] Business "Free Speech" Claims Fail to Block Do-Not-Call Registry

The Supreme Court refused to review a case bought by telemarketers whosought to invalidate the Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry. TheRegistry allows individuals to opt out of most telemarketing by makinga call to 1-888-382-1222 or by visiting a government-run web site.

In denying the telemarketers' petition for review, the Supreme Courtlet stand a lower court's opinion that the Registry is aconstitutional and valid action of the Federal Trade Commission (seeEPIC Alert 11.04). While the Supreme Court's action is not a rulingon the merits of the telemarketers' argument, it practically meansthat the Registry will operate without interference for theforeseeable future.

The telemarketers deliberately brought their suit in a jurisdictionwith favorable case precedent. They targeted the Tenth Circuit, asthat jurisdiction decided U.S. West v. Federal CommunicationsCommission, a case where the Court of Appeals previously held thatrequiring phone companies to obtain consent from consumers beforeselling their phone records violated the First Amendment (see EPICAlert 6.13). The Court was dismissive of the privacy interestsasserted, and found that the government did not adequately demonstratehow privacy would be harmed by exploitation of individuals' callingrecords. In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Briscoe argued that theopt-in regulation did not affect expressive activity, and that thechallenge represented a "run-of-mill attack on an agency order'clothed by ingenious argument in the garb' of First Amendmentissues."

The 1999 decision in U.S. West v. FCC gave industry groups hope thatthey could be free of the burdens of consumer protection and privacyby claiming that government regulations violated free speech rights.
But since that decision, federal and state courts have adopted thedissenting reasoning of Judge Briscoe more often than not. In fact,
the Tenth Circuit itself may be distancing itself from the U.S. Westopinion, as it did not even cite that case when it upheld theDo-Not-Call Registry regulations.

Since 1999, the Supreme Court has declined to review a number of caseswhere privacy laws survived commercial free speech challenges. In2001 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Fair CreditReporting Act against a First Amendment challenge. That case, TransUnion v. FTC, stands strongly for the proposition that Congress canspecify opt-in as the standard for protecting individuals' privacy,
even if it results in fewer commercial solicitations. In a separatecase involving the same parties, the D.C. Circuit rejected a FirstAmendment challenge to the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Actprohibiting secondary use of Social Security numbers. The SupremeCourt declined to review both cases.

Several courts have upheld the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alaw that requires opt-in consent before unsolicited fax or recordedmessage solicitations can be sent. The TCPA was upheld against twoFirst Amendment challenges in 1995 in the Ninth Circuit and one in2003 in the Eighth Circuit. The Supreme Court declined to review allthree cases.

In 2002, the Second Circuit upheld a New York state "anti-
blockbusting" law against a First Amendment challenge. In that case,
real estate agents challenged a law allowing individuals to opt out ofsolicitations that attempted to churn the housing market by stokingfears of racial or ethnic influx. The Supreme Court declined toreview that case as well.

For more information about the Do-Not-Call Registry, see EPIC'sDo-Not-Call Registry Timeline:

Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry:

[5] California Enacts New, Innovative Privacy Protections

The 2003-2004 California legislative sessions were marked by thepassage of several significant privacy laws. California continues tobe the leading state in developing new protections for privacy. Theprotections tend to be strong, giving individuals substantive rightsto limit exploitation of personal information. Unlike laws recentlypassed by the U.S. Congress, California's privacy laws usually allowindividuals to take wrongdoers to court.

Perhaps the most significant privacy protections were created by SB 1,
the California Financial Information Privacy Act (see EPIC Alert10.17). SB1 is the strongest financial privacy law in the country,
giving individuals the ability to limit disclosure of personalinformation even among companies that have common ownership. Thebanking industry, despite agreeing that the law was a good compromise,
sought to preempt SB 1 through amendments to federal law and through alawsuit challenging SB 1's provisions under the federal Fair CreditReporting Act. EPIC, joined by a coalition of consumer and civilliberties groups representing 41 million individuals, filed a brief inthe case arguing that SB 1 is not preempted by federal law (see EPICAlert 11.17).

California is taking strong steps against "list brokerage," thecompilation of personal information from business transactions,
warranty cards, or sweepstakes entries for resale to telemarketers,
spammers, and junk mailers. Under SB 27, starting January 1, 2005,
individuals will be able to ask California businesses whether theysell personal information to direct marketers. Upon receiving arequest, the business must disclose the names and addresses of therecipients of personal information and the types of informationdisclosed within thirty days. SB 1633 requires notice and opt-inconsent before businesses seek medical information from individualsthat will be used for direct marketing purposes.

AB 1950 requires businesses with data on California residents toimplement reasonable security practices to protect personalinformation. The bill also requires businesses to ensure thatinformation is secured when transferred to nonaffiliated thirdparties.

Under federal law and Federal Trade Commission case precedent, thereis no requirement that web sites have privacy policies. Instead, website operators are only bound by privacy policies if they choose topost one. Now, under California's AB 68, operators of commercial websites that collect personal information from the State's residentsmust post a privacy policy and abide by it.

Under SB 1457, Californians can now sue spammers for damages when theysend unsolicited commercial e-mail that is false or misleading. SB1457 is a follow-up measure to an earlier California spam bill thatprohibited spam unless affirmative consent had been obtained from therecipient. Congress largely preempted that legislation throughpassage of the CAN-SPAM Act.

More information on the California privacy landscape is available fromPrivacy Rights Clearinghouse:

Official California legislative Information:

[6] News in Brief

On September 30, the United States Visitor and Immigrant StatusIndicator Technology (US-VISIT) program began screening travelersentering and leaving the United States through the Visa WaiverProgram. The expansion will affect an estimated 13 million citizensfrom 27 nations -- including Japan, Australia, and many Europeancountries -- who until now have been permitted to visit the UnitedStates for up to 90 days without a visa. As a result of the change,
the U.S. government will collect biometrics from about 33,000 moretravelers every day. The Japanese Foreign Ministry said that itintends to insist that the U.S. government delete fingerprints andphotos of Visa Waiver visitors once they have left the country, aswell as create a system to disclose how the government is usingvisitors' personal information.

In related news, Privacy International has released a report onUS-VISIT, urging that the increased surveillance at U.S. borderscreated by the program poses significant challenges to civilliberties.

Privacy International report on US-VISIT:

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

A New York district court on September 29 struck down a provision ofthe USA PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional under the First and FourthAmendments. The provision requires Internet Service Providers andother businesses, upon request by the FBI, to surrender informationabout their customers, and then bars them from revealing that thedisclosure ever took place. The FBI requests such information with anational security letter, which does not require judicial approval oroversight.

The current version of this provision is an expansion of a 1986 lawthat allowed the FBI to use national security letters to seek evidenceagainst "foreign powers or agents of foreign powers." The Patriot Actloosened this standard by simply requiring the information that theFBI seeks to be "relevant" to terrorism or intelligence gathering. Thecourt ruled that the provision violates free speech rights under theFirst Amendment due to its permanent ban on disclosure, and violateslimitations on search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment becauseit restricts judicial challenge to government searches.

This is the second time a court has found a provision of the USAPATRIOT Act unconstitutional. In January, a federal court inCalifornia struck down a section making it illegal to give "expertadvice or assistance" to groups that the government has designated"foreign terrorist organizations" as unconstitutionally vague underthe First and Fifth Amendments.

Court opinion finding national secruity letter provision of the USAPATRIOT Act:

Documents about national security letters obtained by EPIC under theFreedom of Information Act:

For more information about the national security letters, see EPIC'sUSA PATRIOT Act Page:

The Council of Europe is actively urging countries to sign in to lawthe Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. The Convention wassigned in 2001 by 30 countries, but has since been ratified by onlyeight. Governments are wary of potentially being required to makedata on their citizens available to other governments. The Council ofEurope recently participated in the United Nations Consultation on theWorking Group on Internet Governance, suggesting the Convention onCybercrime is a model law that other countries should adoptnationally. The Council also held a high-level conference inStrasbourg to encourage ratification of the Convention. Whileinterested in preventing cybercrime, governments are rightly concernedwith many provisions of this Convention. The Information TechnologyAssociation of America is pressing the U.S. Senate for itsratification, as is President Bush. While it is widely agreed that aninternational approach to combating cybercrime is necessary, thisConvention may force U.S. companies and law enforcement to investigateAmericans for acts which are not illegal in this country -- asignificant provision of the agreement, but one which isunconstitutional in the United States. In addition, many point outthat this treaty is extraordinarily invasive and lacks strong privacyprotections, that it could actually promote insecurity of computersystems through required disclosure of decryption keys, and that thecriminal liability placed on businesses could increase theirsurveillance of employees.

For more information about the Convention, see EPIC's page on theConvention on Cybercrime:

EPIC's statement in opposition to the Convention on Cybercrime:

On September 30, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing called"ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet Root Servers and the DomainName System (DNS)." Representatives of the Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Department of State, theNational Telecommunications and Information Administration, theDepartment of Homeland Security, Verisign Inc., and an administratorof the B Root Server were invited to testify on these issues. TheSenators briefly questioned ICANN's progress in fulfilling itsmandate, but spent more time inquiring about the stability of the rootservers, at one point asking the B Root Administrator what keeps himup at night. His answer: root server administration and coordinationis working well -- it is the end users that are a cause of concern.
Ambassador Gross of the Department of State testified about the newUnited Nations Working Group on Internet Governance currently beingestablished under the mandate of the World Summit on the InformationSociety. Many people around the world, particularly in developingcountries, are dissatisfied with the way the Internet is governed andfeel some degree of reform is necessary. The Working Group has beengiven the task of mapping out Internet governance and suggesting keyareas that need attention. Despite the earnest testimony ofAmbassador Gross, the Senators were apprehensive about the UnitedNations "meddling" and expressed no interest in the concerns of thosewho feel excluded in decisions concerning the global Internet. TheSenators appeared pleased with the testimony and reassured that theInternet is stable.

Testimony from the Senate hearing:

The Public Voice news on the Working Group on Internet Governance:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: Losing America

Robert C. Byrd, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and ArrogantPresidency (W.W. Norton & Company 2004).

Watching Senator Byrd deliver a speech from the floor of the UnitedStates Senate provides one of the better arguments for the creation ofC-Span. A discussion on a legislative matter may include referencesto Periclean Athens, the Magna Carta, or the Founding Fathers. Saywhat you will about the former majority leader, this is a person whocares passionately about the history of democratic government.

Thus a book by Senator Byrd on the functioning of the U.S. governmentafter 9-11 is worth a close look. His attack on the President, andmany of his own Congressional colleagues, rings as did thecolonialists' broadside against another George when the country wasfounded. Although Senator Byrd spends much of the book exploring therush to war (and the Congress' failure to preserve is ownconstitutional authority), it is the discussion of the USA PATRIOT Actand the Department of Homeland Security that will be of greatestinterest to the civil liberties community.

Senator Byrd says bluntly the USA PATRIOT Act was "a case study in theperils of speed, herd instinct, and lack of vigilance when it comes tolegislating in the face of a crisis . . . The Congress basically gotstampeded by Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the values offreedom, justice, and equality received a trampling in the headlongrush."

Now, many critics of the USA PATRIOT Act would typically go on to saythat some of the law's provisions were necessary and important, butSenator Byrd is reluctant to concede this point. He argues, as toofew Members of Congress do, that "removing the wall" betweentraditional criminal investigations and foreign intelligenceinvestigations "dangerously blurs the distinction between the two."
Simply stated, the USA PATRIOT Act diminished constitutionalsafeguards and allowed the U.S. government to spy on its citizens.

The discussion of the creation of Department of Homeland Security isanother story of expansive executive powers. Though Senator Byrdobviously liked Tom Ridge, who would later become Secretary of theagency, he was not pleased about the proposal for the Department northe secrecy with which it was introduced. He writes, "I believe thatunder the guise of creating a new Homeland Security Department, thepresident had succeeded in limiting Congressional oversight andremoving limitations on executive power."

Byrd points specifically to the changes in open government laws andopen meeting requirements, and the consolidation of informationsharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies. "The firewalls intended to prevent the consolidation of such information andthe massing of too much police power by the federal government havebeen removed."

Senator Byrd's sharp assault on President Bush could be dismissed aselection-year partisanship. But Byrd is not a radio show demagogue,
trying to get on Larry King. He has served in the Congress for overfifty years. He has worked closely with many different presidents,
and is as willing to criticize former Democratic presidents and he isto praise Republican.

This President was recently rebuked by the Supreme Court for hisattempt to designate an American citizen an "enemy combatant" withoutany judicial review. Senator Byrd's book tells us that this is onlyone of many instances where the President has sought to weaken theconstitutional checks and balances that safeguard the liberty ofAmerica.

-Marc Rotenberg

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

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 11.19


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback