WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 3

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

EPIC Alert 11.03 [2004] EPICAlert 3


Volume 11.03 February 11, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] EPIC FOIA Docs Show Acxiom Was Considered as TIA Data Source
[2] Pentagon Cancels Internet Voting Project
[3] FBI Asks FCC to Delay Discussion of Internet Phone Rules
[4] DHS Deputy Secretary Questioned About Passenger Profiling
[5] EPIC and PI Open Nominations for Brandeis, Big Brother Awards
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Protecting America's Health
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] EPIC FOIA Docs Show Acxiom Was Considered as TIA Data Source

EPIC has obtained a document under the Freedom of Information Act containing internal communications among Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) employees considering data broker Acxiom as a supplier of personal information for the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program. In an e-mail dated May 21, 2002 to TIA developers John Poindexter and Robert Popp, a DARPA employee writes that "Acxiom is the nation's largest commercial data warehouse company ($1B/year)
with customers like Citibank, Walmart, and other companies whose names you know. They have a history of treating privacy issues fairly and they don't advertise at all. As a result they haven't been hurt as much as ChoicePoint, Seisint, etc by privacy concerns and press inquiries."

The e-mail claims that Jennifer Barrett, Acxiom's Chief Privacy Officer, provided recommendations that would help quell public scrutiny of the transfer of data from the company to the government:
"One of the key suggestions she made is that people will object to Big Brother, wide-coverage databases, but they don't object to use of relevant data for specific purposes that we can all agree on. Rather than getting all the data for any purpose, we should start with the goal, tracking terrorists to avoid attacks, and then identify the data needed (although we can't define all of this, we can say that our templates and models of terrorists are good places to start).
Already, this guidance has shaped my thinking."

The employee continues: "Ultimately, the US may need huge databases of commercial transactions that cover the world or certain areas outside the US. This information provides economic utility, and thus provides two reasons why foreign countries would be interested.
Acxiom could build this mega-scale database."

In response, Robert Popp asked the employee about estimated costs associated with having Acxiom participate in the "TIA critical experiment," and for the company's assistance in helping Rand "identify all the relevant databases."

DARPA E-mail Obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act:

For more information about TIA, see the EPIC Total InformationAwareness Page:

For more information about consumer profiling, see the EPIC ConsumerProfiling Page:

[2] Pentagon Cancels Internet Voting Project

Citing security concerns, the Pentagon has cancelled an Internetvoting project designed to let military and other personnel overseasvote in the 2004 local and general elections. The Defense Departmentdecided not to implement the program "in view of the inability toensure legitimacy of votes, thereby bringing into doubt the integrityof the election[.]"

The Pentagon decision to abandon SERVE came two weeks after therelease of a security review that recommended cancellation of theprogram because of numerous security risks. The report, authored by apanel of computer science experts, found the system vulnerable tohacking, noted the lack of a paper audit, and pointed out the dangerto election data's validity. The report concluded that the securityweaknesses inherent in voting over an Internet-based system were"fundamental," and fixing those weaknesses would require a redesign ofthe Internet itself. Because these security risks could not bemitigated, the computer security experts recommended the cancellationof the SERVE program.

In other electronic voting news, EPIC obtained an independent securityand verification audit of Diebold voting machines commissioned by theMaryland Legislature. The legislative report agreed with an earlierindependent study of Diebold e-voting machines by Computer Securityexpert Dr. Avi Rubin, at Johns Hopkins. Like the Rubin study, thelegislative report found numerous security vulnerabilities in theDiebold system. The report also found that the Diebold system failedto incorporate strategies to counter component failure, or any systemfailure.

The SERVE Security Analysis Report:

The Maryland Legislature Study of Diebold Voting Machines: (appendix)

Dr. Avi Rubin’s Study of Diebold Voting Machines:

Verified Voting Coalition:

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

[3] FBI Asks FCC to Delay Discussion of Internet Phone Rules 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently sent a letter tothe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asking the FCC to put offany discussion concerning the regulation of Voice over InternetProtocol (VoIP). VoIP is a technology that allows Internet users tomake phone calls over high-speed Internet connections. The FBI, alongwith the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Agency(DEA), want to delay the discussion until the FCC addresses how VoIPcommunications can be monitored by law enforcement.

At the center of the debate is the 1994 Communications Assistance toLaw Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA requires telecommunicationsservice providers to provide wiretapping access to law enforcement.
However, VoIP is currently an information service rather than atelecommunications service and is therefore not subject to CALEA. TheDOJ, FBI and DEA (DEA) are petitioning the FCC to regulate Internettelephony in such a way that CALEA can be legally and technicallyapplied. VoIP providers would have to rewire their networks togovernment specifications so that law enforcement officials could moreeasily listen in on VoIP calls. The FCC remains hesitant to regulatethe technology.

In December, EPIC sent a letter to the FCC urging the agency to adoptprivacy protections for VoIP. The letter states, "EPIC maintains ourstrong reservations regarding the application of the CommunicationsAssistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements to thisservice. It is simply not coherent to argue that VoIP services shouldbe free of government regulation and then for the government torequire that communication service providers, hardware manufacturers,
and network developers incorporate the most extreme communicationssurveillance requirements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Communications technologies like VoIP should be designed for preciselywhat they are intended for: to enable communication between people,
not to allow surveillance on private citizens."

According to FCC spokesman Michael Balmoris, the agency has decided topress on with its review of VoIP this week despite the FBI's request.
The FCC is holding an open meeting Thursday, February 12, 2004 toconsider VoIP and related issues. The meeting is scheduled for 9:30a.m. in Room TW-C305 at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C.

Audio/video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live over theInternet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events web page at:  
The FCC's VoIP Page:    

EPIC's letter to the FCC:    

For more information on Voice over Internet Protocol, see EPIC's VoIPPage:   

[4] DHS Deputy Secretary Questioned About Passenger Profiling

Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Admiral James Loyencountered skepticism about the controversial Computer AssistedPassenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) program when he recentlytestified before the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon theUnited States (9-11 Commission). The 9-11 Commission is anindependent, bipartisan panel chartered by Congress and President Bushto investigate and report on the circumstances surrounding theSeptember 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and make recommendations on howto prevent such attacks in the future.

After Admiral Loy testified on developments in transportation securitysince the 9-11 attacks, Commissioner Fred F. Fielding asserted thatthe expansion of CAPPS II from an aviation security measure to a lawenforcement tool demonstrated "classic mission creep." Admiral Loyresisted the characterization of the program, but stated that CAPPS II"should be as pristine as we can make it, focused on exactly what wewant to use it for." In response to further questioning fromCommissioner Fielding, Admiral Loy conceded that CAPPS II is"gameable," and noted that the system as currently designed wouldlabel approximately 14.5 percent of air travellers "selectees" subjectto, at a minimum, secondary screening.

Today the Associated Press reported that a General Accounting Officereport on CAPPS II commissioned by Congress and scheduled for releaseon February 13 states that the Transportation Security Administrationhas not adequately addressed privacy and security concerns presentedby the program. The findings of the report will weaken Congressionalsupport for CAPPS II and throw the program's future into doubt.

In related news, The Article 29 Working Party (WP29) has released itsopinion on the December 16, 2003 agreement between the Department ofHomeland Security and the European Commission (EC) on the disclosureof passenger data between the European Union (EU) and the UnitedStates. The opinion concluded that the agreement is inadequate underEU data protection laws.

The WP29 opinion recommends: 1) restricting the purpose of thedisclosure to the fight against terrorism, 2) implementing shorter andmore proportionate data retention periods, 3) not using data forimplementing and/or testing CAPPS II or similar systems, 4) providingpassengers with access to an independent redress mechanism, 5) makingthe agreement fully binding on the United States, and 6) strictlylimiting further disclosures of passenger data to other government orforeign authorities. The WP29 opinion, though not binding on the EC,
may have an impact on Members of the European Parliament when theyvote in March on whether to adopt the EC's decision of adequacy, aswell as on EU Member State data protection authorities in theirdecisions to pursue complaints by passengers for breach of EU privacylaws by airline companies.

Article 29 Working Party Opinion 2/2004 (WP 87) on the AdequateProtection of Personal Data Contained in the PNR of Air Passengers toBe Transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and BorderProtection:

European Commission's Communication to the Council and Parliament onthe Transfer of Air Passenger Name Record Data:

For more information on the transfer of passenger information betweenthe European Union and United States, see EPIC's EU-US AirlinePassenger Data Page:

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

[5] EPIC and PI Open Nominations for Brandeis, Big Brother Awards

In April 2004, EPIC and Privacy International (PI) will hold the sixthU.S. "Big Brother Awards" to name and shame the public and privatesector individuals and organizations that have done the most to invadepersonal privacy in the United States in the past year. Threedistinctive "Orwell" statues of a golden boot stomping a head will bepresented to the government agencies and officials, companies andinitiatives that have done the most to invade personal privacy in theprevious year. The "Admiral John M. Poindexter Lifetime Menace" awardwill also be presented to an organization that has systematicallyinvaded privacy over a long period of time.

The judging panel, which consists of lawyers, academics, consultants,
journalists and civil rights activists, is currently invitingnominations from members of the public. Nominations can be submittedvia the PI website.

Previous "winners" include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, theNational Security Agency, DoubleClick, ChoicePoint, Delta Airlines,
Trans Union, Oracle, the FAA's BodyScan system, the Department ofCommerce and Microsoft.

"Brandeis" awards will also be given out to champions of privacy. TheBrandeis Award is named after U.S. Supreme Court Justice LouisBrandeis, who is considered the father of American privacy law,
describing privacy as "the right most valued by civilized" persons.
The awards are given to those who have done exemplary work to protectand enhance privacy. Previous winners include Phil Zimmermann,
creator of PGP; Beth Givens, founder of the Privacy RightsClearinghouse; and Robert Ellis Smith, editor of the Privacy Journal.

The Big Brother Awards are celebrated internationally. There havealso been ceremonies in the UK, Germany, Austria, Finland, Japan,
Bulgaria, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, France, Denmark andthe Netherlands.

Big Brother Awards France (BBAF) recently held the year's first BigBrother ceremony to "honor" six French individuals, initiatives andcompanies with Big Brother prizes. BBAF also presented a VoltaireAward to a group of teachers who resisted government pressure tobecome police informers against their students.

Big Brother Awards:

Submit a nomination: 
Big Brother Awards France:    

[6] News in Brief

Utah has ceased participation in a controversial data mining program,
joining other states that have either left the program or arescrutinizing their continued participation. Last week, Utah GovernorOlene Walker withdrew Utah from the Multistate Anti-TerrorismInformation Exchange (MATRIX) program, which allows law enforcementofficials to instantly request information on a person from multipledata sources, both public and private. Neither Governor Walker northe Utah Legislature had been briefed on Utah’s involvement with theprogram. Under former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, Utah was to haveshared drivers license information, criminal records, and otherrecords with MATRIX. Connecticut legislators have also begun toexamine whether their state should remain in MATRIX, while Georgiarecently terminated all connections with the MATRIX program, citingprivacy concerns. Six states remain enrolled in MATRIX out of theoriginal thirteen states that participated in the prototype program.

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

MATRIX program webpage:

President Bush has proposed greater funding for homeland securityinitiatives in the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request.
The administration requested that $60 million be allotted for theComputer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II), asignificant increase over the $45 million proposed for the program infiscal year 2004. The administration has also requested that theJustice Department be given $2.2 billion for information technologyprograms, which would constitute a 6 percent increase in the agency'soverall budget from fiscal year 2004. $34 million is slated to gotoward the integration of fingerprint systems maintained by the FBIand former INS. A combined $64.5 has been requested for the TerroristScreening Center, which will consolidate existing terrorist watchlists, and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which will allowlaw enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security to shareinformation in terrorism investigations.

The Bush Administration's 2005 Budget Request:   

A New Jersey appeals court has issued a decision that providesstronger protection for financial records than is currently affordedby federal law. To acquire an individual's financial records from afinancial institution, the State now will have to obtain a searchwarrant or a grand jury subpoena and notify the target of theinvestigation. In most circumstances, federal law requires only thatindividuals be given notice and an opportunity to object before a bankor other specified institution can disclose personal financialinformation to the federal government for law enforcement purposes.
Notably, the New Jersey court specifically rejected a 1970s SupremeCourt decision that refused to recognize privacy rights in informationheld by third parties. That decision has allowed police to obtaininformation from a vast array of businesses without notice toindividuals or involvement with an independent magistrate.

The New Jersey appellate decision is available at:

For more information about federal financial privacy law, see EPIC'sRight to Financial Privacy Act Page:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) helda workshop on spam in Brussels last week to allow representatives ofOECD Member State governments, the European Commission, consumergroups, and business stakeholders explore the problem of spam,
focusing on its international dimension. Panels discussed sources andcharacteristics of spam as well as its societal, economic, businessand technical impacts; approaches to combat spam; and the next stepsto increase international cooperation to fight spam.

OECD Background Paper for the OECD Workshop on Spam:
European Commission January 22, 2004 Communication on UnsolicitedCommercial Communications or "Spam": 
Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue February 2004 survey on spam:

Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue February 2004 Resolution:

For more information on spam, see the EPIC Spam Page:

Artists Beatriz da Costa, Jamie Schulte, and Brooke Singer havecreated the "SWIPE Toolkit," a collection of web-based utilities thatallow individuals to read the barcode on their driver's license andrequest personal information from data brokers. The Toolkit alsofeatures a "data calculator" that shows the fair market value ofpersonal information, and the sources from which data brokers collectthe information. The Toolkit is part of a larger performance,
installation, and workshop that heightens awareness about automatedcollection of personal information. In March 2004, a SWIPEinstallation and performance will be exhibited at the Beall Center atUniversity of California-Irvine.

The SWIPE Toolkit:

The SWIPE Project:

Beall Center SWIPE Performance:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: Protecting America's Health

Protecting America's Health, The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Yearsof Regulation, by Philip J. Hilts (Knopf 2003).

I have been interested in the history of the Food and DrugAdministration for some time. The agency's development follows apolicy debate of central importance: in protecting public health, towhat degree will we adopt precautionary principles for food and drugsafety and purity? The stakes are large, because regulation toostrict will increase food prices, while as Hilts demonstrates, pure oreven limited self-regulation results in serious harms to the public.
Before the process of establishing precautionary principles in foodand drug law took hold, manufacturers would lie, falsify evidence, andwithhold information on the dangers of drugs. Food companies wouldmislabel products, for instance, by passing off laboratory-createdglucose with added honeycombs and dye as pure honey. Patent medicinequacks would sell colored water as a cure for cancer, and productscontaining opium to sooth children.

Hilts' book is also interesting because drug and food policy debatesclosely track modern privacy law issues. The same arguments used tofight food and drug laws in 1900 are used today to prevent privacyprotection. Invocations of "innovation" and free enterprise rightsrepeatedly stopped Congress from enacting food and drug safety lawsuntil people died and were disfigured by reckless behavior. Inhindsight, we know the food and drug manufacturers' arguments werebogus­laws that required safety and purity, although imperfect,
reduced fraud and led to modern pharmaceutical science. We also knowthat not all innovation is good -- both in food and drugs and intechnology. For instance, one well-known "innovation" quashed in theearly days of the FDA was the practice of collecting abandoned horsesin Manhattan for resale as "beef" in New Jersey.

In the conclusion, Hilts visits a now famous experiment that testedthe ethics of business school students. In it, Wharton students wereplaced in a role-playing situation where their profitable company isreaping $1 million a month by continuing to market an ineffective,
unsafe drug. A large majority of the students consistently chose theprofit-maximizing role, one that kept the drug on the market withoutwarnings, and actively frustrated government intervention. Perhapsthe book should start with that study. It suggests that for all thetalk of the benefits self-regulation, the most privileged businessstudents will act like the charlatans of the 1900s (and believe thatit is their duty to shareholders to do so). Hilts' book is a reminderthat there still is a strong role for law in consumer protection toshield the public from less than ethical business behavior.

- Chris Jay Hoofnagle

EPIC Publications:

"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

Living with the New Private Sector - Privacy Law: What YourOrganization Needs to Know, a One Day Seminar and Training Session.
Riley Information Services Inc. February 16, 2004. Ottawa, Canada.
For more information:

Antiterrorism and the Security Agenda: Impacts on Rights, Freedoms,
and Democracy. International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.
February 17, 2004. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

SPAM Technology Workshop. Computer Security Resource Center.
February 17, 2004. Gaithersburg, MD. For more information:

Free Seminar on Electronic Advocacy for Nonprofits. Confluence.
February 18, 2004. Washington, DC. E-mail

IAPP 4th Annual Privacy & Security Summit & Expo. February 18-20,
2004. Washington, DC. For more information:

RSA Conference 2004 - The Art of Information Security. February23-27, 2004. San Francisco, CA. For more information:

Third Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records.
Courtroom 21 Project. February 27-28, 2004. Williamsburg, VA. Formore information:

PKC 2004: International Workshop on Practice and Theory in Public KeyCryptography. Institute for Infocomm Research. March 1-4, 2004.
Sentosa, Singapore. For more information:

A Summit on Healthcare Privacy and Data Security: HIPAA and Beyond.
Health Care Conference Administrators. March 7-9, 2004. Baltimore,
MD. For more information:

Securing Privacy in the Internet Age. Stanford Law School. March13-14, 2004. Palo Alto, CA. For more information:

Sixth Annual National Freedom of Information Day Conference. FirstAmendment Center, in cooperation with the American LibraryAssociation. March 16, 2004. Arlington, VA.

CFP2004: 14th Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). April 20-23, 2004.
Berkeley, CA. For more information:

2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IIEEE Computer SocietyTechnical Committee on Security and Privacy, in cooperation with theInternational Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR). May 9-12,
2004. Oakland, CA. For more information:

International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in a GlobalSociety. Wessex Institute. May 11-13, 2004. Skiathos, Greece. Formore information:

The Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security.
University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center. May 13-14, 2004.
Minneapolis, MN. For more information:

Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. University of Toronto.
May 26-28, 2004. Toronto, Canada. For more information:

Access & Privacy Conference 2004: Sorting It Out. Government Studies,
Faculty of Extension. June 10-11, 2004. University of Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. For more information:

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

First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam. American Association forArtificial Intelligence and IEEE Technical Committee on Security andPrivacy. July 30-31, 2004. Mountain View, CA. For more information:

Crypto 2004: The Twenty-Fourth Annual IACR Crypto Conference.
International Association for Cryptologic Research, IEEE ComputerSociety Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the ComputerScience Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara, CA. August 15-19, 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:

Subscription Information

Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:

Subscribe/unsubscribe via e-mail:

Subject: "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" (no quotes)

Automated help with subscribing/unsubscribing:

Subject: "help" (no quotes)

Problems or questions? e-mail < >

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". Please contact if you wouldlike to change your subscription e-mail address, if you areexperiencing subscription/unsubscription problems, or if you have anyother questions.

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,
e-mail, or write EPIC, 1718Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, 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 11.03


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback