WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 6

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

EPIC Alert 11.06 [2004] EPICAlert 6


Volume 11.06 March 24, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] Supreme Court Hears Compelled ID Case
[2] EPIC Testifies on Air Profiling System
[3] DC Council Unveils DC Police's Spying Practices
[4] More States Back Out of MATRIX
[5] EPIC's Open Government Work Recognized With Madison Award
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Ben Franklin's Web Site
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

[1] Supreme Court Hears Compelled ID Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 22 in acase challenging a Nevada law that allows police to arrest anindividual when there are "suspicious circumstances surrounding hispresence" and he refuses to identify himself. Larry Dudley Hiibelchallenged the constitutionality of the law when he was convictedunder it for refusing to give his name to a police officer. Theconstitutional challenges in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevadaassert that the law violates the right against unreasonable search andseizure based in the Fourth Amendment, and the right againstself-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

During oral arguments several Justices challenged the government'sclaim that the information was necessary to protect officers. Ittakes time to run the name through the computer, probed one Justice,
does not an officer put herself in more danger by occupying her timewith a name search when the more immediate harm is fear of physicalviolence? The Court has already ruled that a pat-down search ispermitted if the officer has enough suspicion to warrant one.

The general direction of the questioning showed concern about howsuccessful police officers would be in solving crimes if they had torely on volunteered information to aid investigations. JusticeScalia, expressing skepticism about Hiibel's claims, suggested that itis the obligation of every responsible American to tell the governmentas much as he or she knows. He suggested it is disingenuous tosuggest that anyone could believe in the right not to give his or hername, even if he or she does not know what the name will be used for.
The U.S. Solicitor General's office, participating in the case as a"friend of the court," claimed that name requests do not "present anysort of intrusion at all."

EPIC was one of several groups to submit a brief in support of Hiibel.
EPIC's brief focused on the wealth of information in national lawenforcement databases that becomes available to police officers oncethey input a person's name. Other briefs in support of Hiibel focusedon the difficulty of proving one's identity, especially as it affectsthe homeless, and the harms of punishing silence.

Hiibel, who was present in the courtroom during the arguments,
complimented the Nevada Public Defender who argued the case on hisbehalf and remarked that the questioning was "fair." Given thechance, he affirmed, he "would do it all over again," asserting thateveryone has the "right to remain silent."

EPIC's amicus brief filed in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada:

For more information about the case, see EPIC's Hiibel v. SixthJudicial Court of Nevada Page:

[2] EPIC Testifies on Air Profiling System

On March 18, EPIC General Counsel David L. Sobel testified on thestatus of the controversial second-generation Computer AssistedPassenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) before the AviationSubcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure. Sobel said there is reason to doubt whether CAPPS II,
currently under development by the Transportation SecurityAdministration, can ever function in a way that protects privacy andprovides citizens with basic due process rights. He also cited recentGeneral Accounting Office findings that serious privacy problems inthe system have not yet been addressed.

Sobel argued that CAPPS II is a "secret, classified system that theagency will use to conduct background checks on tens of millions ofairline passengers." He pointed out that citizens have aconstitutional right to travel, and that CAPPS II conditions thisright upon the surrender of privacy and due process rights, so theprogram should be closely scrutinized by Congress.

Sobel noted that the Transportation Security Administration has"strenuously resisted the disclosure of virtually all relevantinformation" about CAPPS II, so the public knows little about how theprogram would operate. He asserted that it is impossible to "have aninformed public debate on the implications of CAPPS II" unless theagency makes more information available.

The most pressing of the passenger profiling system's problems, Sobelargued, is the fact that it thoroughly contravenes the intent of thePrivacy Act, a federal law meant to guard citizens' personalinformation from government intrusion and abuse. The TransportationSecurity Administration has exempted CAPPS II from many vitalprovisions of the Privacy Act that protect the rights of citizens. TheAgency has refused to disclose the categories of sources ofinformation in CAPPS II. Furthermore, the agency has refused toafford passengers meaningful access to information about them used byCAPPS II, or meaningful opportunities to correct inaccurate,
irrelevant, untimely and incomplete information. Sobel also notedCAPPS II's exemption from the requirement that a system maintain onlyinformation that is "relevant and necessary" to perform the system'sfunction, and asserted that TSA's broadly drawn "routine uses" ofCAPPS II data would only heighten the system's privacy problems.

Others testifying on the status of CAPPS II before the Subcommitteewere Admiral David Stone, Acting Administrator of the TransportationSecurity Administration; Norman J. Rabkin, Managing Director of theGeneral Accounting Office's Homeland Security and Justice Division;
James C. May, President and CEO of the Air Transport Association;
Kevin Mitchell, Chairman of the Business Travel Coalition; and PaulRosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on the Status of CAPPS II:

Statement of EPIC General Counsel David L. Sobel:  

Report of the General Accounting Office:  
For more information about CAPPS II, see EPIC's Passenger ProfilingPage:

[3] DC Council Unveils DC Police's Spying Practices

The District of Columbia Council's Judiciary Committee has approved areport recommending legislation to restrict the Metropolitan PoliceDepartment's surveillance of political organizations and preemptivearrests of protesters.

The committee's report found that the Department repeatedly violatedits own rules for handling demonstrations, including guidelines on useof force in defensive situations, de-escalation in crowd control, andpredicates required for mass arrests. The report also stated that theDC Police took preemptive actions against demonstrators, includingpreemptive arrests. The nine-month investigation further determinedthat the DC Police used undercover officers to infiltrate politicalgroups in the absence of criminal activity and without any policyguidelines to protect the constitutional rights to privacy, freespeech and assembly of those individuals being monitored.

Additionally, the DC Police failed to discipline officers formisconduct, including a plain-clothes detective who chased onlookerswith pepper spray during a 2001 demonstration and was exonerated ofwrongdoing by both the DC Police and the U.S. Attorney's office. Italso found that Police Chief Charles Ramsey misrepresented his ownrole in September 2002 mass arrests at Pershing Park, an area close tothe White House.

The Committee's report recommends legislation setting out clearguidelines for the DC Police with regard to mass demonstrations andpolice surveillance and infiltration of political organizations.

The DC Council's Report on Investigation of the Metropolitan PoliceDepartment's Policy and Practice in Handling Demonstrations in theDistrict of Columbia:

For more information about surveillance initiatives, see EPIC's VideoSurveillance Page:

For more information about protester surveillance, see EPIC'sProtester Privacy Page:

EPIC's Observing Surveillance Web Site:

[4] More States Back Out of MATRIX

New York and Wisconsin have left the Multi-state Anti-TerrorismInformation Exchange (MATRIX) program. MATRIX is a prototype databasesystem run by the State of Florida and Seisint, a private company.
Built by a consortium of state law enforcement agencies, MATRIXcombines public records and private record data from multipledatabases with data analysis tools. MATRIX is available to lawenforcement agents in participating states, and provides a wealth ofpersonal information in near-real time. New York and Wisconsin joinseveral other states that have left the program citing state privacylaws and other privacy concerns, cost, and lack of effectiveness.

Wisconsin's departure comes just one month after the state officiallyentered the MATRIX program, and only days after the state's entranceinto MATRIX was publicly reported. Wisconsin ceased participation inthe database system due to privacy concerns, potential for abuse, andthe departure of other states from MATRIX. New York was one of theoriginal states participating in MATRIX, but left because of the costof the program and diminished effectiveness of the system as otherstates removed their data from MATRIX.

The departures of New York and Wisconsin leave only five of theoriginal thirteen states in the MATRIX pilot project within theprogram. Two of those states, Connecticut and Michigan, are publiclyconsidering leaving the database program. State legislators inConnecticut are currently holding hearings to debate whether to stayin the MATRIX program, and Michigan is reevaluating the state'sinvolvement in MATRIX in light of the departure of so many otherstates.

One of the states that has left MATRIX, Utah, is currentlyinvestigating the state's involvement in MATRIX under former GovernorMike Leavitt. Utah quickly left the MATRIX project in late Januaryafter state government officials discovered the state's participationin the project. Neither current Olene Governor Walker nor the UtahLegislature had been briefed on Utah's involvement with the program.

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

MATRIX program webpage:

[5] EPIC's Open Government Work Recognized With Madison Award

EPIC General Counsel David L. Sobel was awarded the prestigious JamesMadison Award by the American Library Association on March 16. TheMadison Award is presented each year on Freedom of Information Day torecognize individuals or groups that have championed access togovernment information and the public's right to know. Sobel is thefirst Freedom of Information Act litigator to receive the award.

Over the last decade, Sobel has led EPIC's efforts to obtaininformation about the FBI's wiretapping program known as Carnivore,
the encryption standard called Clipper, and the CAPPS II passengerscreening initiative. Many of the documents obtained by EPIC havebeen cited in national news reports and discussed at Congressionalhearings. Currently, EPIC has a range of FOIA requests pendingconcerning the impact of government surveillance post 9-11. Thesefocus on aviation security, data mining and implementation of the USAPATRIOT Act.

The award honored Sobel's aggressive pursuit of Freedom of Informationmatters in court. In a recent case against the Department of Defense,
for instance, EPIC sought information about John Poindexter's proposedTotal Information Awareness program. Not only did the governmentrefuse to disclose the records EPIC requested, but it also attackedEPIC's status as a "news media" user of the Freedom of InformationAct. Sobel took the case to federal court and won a judgment that notonly preserved EPIC's own status as a "news media" requester, but alsothe right of all similar organizations in the United States to makeeffective use of the Freedom of Information Act.

In related news, EPIC launched its Freedom of Information Act Gallery2004 in recognition of Freedom of Information Day. The Galleryincludes some of the most significant records obtained in the pastyear by EPIC through the FOIA, including documents showing thatNorthwest Airlines handed over millions of passenger records to NASA;
U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay used theFederal Aviation Administration to track Texas state legislators; theDepartment of Justice resisted disclosing basic, statisticalinformation about its use of USA PATRIOT Act powers; and consumercomplaints about credit reporting agencies increased dramatically inrecent years.

American Library Association Page on Freedom of Information Day andthe Madison Awards:

EPIC's Freedom of Information Act Gallery 2004:  

[6] News in Brief

A federal district court judge has ordered New York-PresbyterianHospital to turn over to the Justice Department records on abortionsperformed there. The judge ruled that the records are not protectedunder federal medical privacy law and that the threat to patientprivacy is minimal because the records at issue will have names andother identifying information removed.

The decision highlights the disagreement among federal courts aboutthe privacy rights of patients. Judges in San Francisco and Chicagohave ruled that the release of abortion records would violate women'sprivacy without providing much useful information to the government.
As a result of the San Francisco judge's decision, the JusticeDepartment dropped its efforts to obtain records from PlannedParenthood clinics. Further, a judge in Detroit ruled that recordsheld by the University of Michigan Health System should be given tohim for determination of relevance and possible release.

The Justice Department is seeking abortion records as part of itsdefense in a law suit that challenges the constitutionality of thePartial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Three simultaneous trials on theconstitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act are scheduledfor March 29 in San Francisco, New York and Omaha, Nebraska.

For additional information about the Justice Department's efforts toobtain medical records, see EPIC's Medical Privacy Page:

The Federal Communications Commission will issue a rulemaking on ajoint petition from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency seeking to extendCommunications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act requirements topacket-based data networks. CALEA requires that telecommunicationsproviders ensure that their networks comply with FBI-mandatedstandards for easy law enforcement surveillance and wiretapping. Thepetition seeks CALEA requirements for emerging Voice over InternetProtocol (VoIP) services that allow voice communications over theInternet. Extending CALEA to cover VoIP services would require VoIPproviders and high speed Internet Service Providers to comply with lawenforcement standards for interception and surveillance capabilities.
Under the petition, underlying high speed packet-based data networks,
such as cable modem providers and DSL providers, would be required tocomply with CALEA. Under the current FCC understanding, CALEA appliesonly to circuit-based telephone networks, but not packet-basednetworks that are used for the Internet. The agency is seekingcomments on the extension of CALEA to packet-based networks, which aredue April 13, 2004.

FBI/DOJ/DEA Petition to FCC:  

The text of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act:


For more information about wiretapping and CALEA, see EPIC'sWiretapping Page:

Robert Bulmash of Private Citizen has called upon all Americans tocelebrate April as "Cut Junk Mail Month." Individuals are encouragedto collect all of the junk mail during the month of April, to write"refused" on each piece, and to return the offending missives to alocal Post Office branch on May 1, 2004. Postal Service regulationsrequire the agency to accept the refused mail and either return it tothe sender or discard it.

As the Postal Service experiences budgetary difficulties, junk mailersreceive substantial discounts postage than normal users of theservice. The Postal Service encourages the transmission of junk mail,
and includes a guide on its site on how to "Turn Customer Data intoProfitable Information." Private Citizen's Cut Junk Mail Month alsohighlights the need to supplement recent spam and telemarketingregulations with a do-not-mail list that would allow individuals toopt-out of unwanted direct mail.

Private Citizen's Cut Junk Mail Month:

Argentina is organizing its first national census of private databasesto comply with its recent Law for the Protection of Personal Data.
Every holder of private databases containing individuals' personaldata that are being disclosed to third parties must complete aregistration form by April 30, 2004 indicating, among other things,
which information they process, the purpose of processing, and how thedata was obtained. A recent ruling (February 2003) will also prohibitafter August 2004 any transfer of personal data to third partieswithout the individual's written consent. The ruling will cover datatransfers between Argentina and U.S.-based American companies.
Experts believe that this census will give consumers better means withwhich to enforce the privacy rights the data protection law providesthem.

Law for the Protection of Personal Data (No. 25,326), Oct. 4, 2000(English unofficial translation):

Ruling 2/2003, Nov. 11, 2003 (Spanish):
Ruling 1/2004, Feb. 2, 2003 (Spanish):

Argentina country report, Privacy and Human Rights 2003:

The Judicial Conference of the United States has issued guidancepermitting remote electronic access to federal court criminal casefiles. The guidance requires filers of documents to redact SocialSecurity Numbers, account numbers, names of minor children, dates ofbirth, and home addresses. If these identifiers must be included inthe document, the filer should list only partial information, such asthe last four digits of the Social Security Number or the initials ofminor children. The policy further states that certain documentsshould never be made public in paper or in electronic form. Theseinclude pre-sentence investigation reports, juvenile records, juroridentification information, and unexecuted summonses or warrants.

Guidance for Implementation of the Judicial Conference Policy onPrivacy and Public Access to Electronic Criminal Case Files:

Model Local Rule Regarding Privacy and Public Access to ElectronicCriminal Case Files:

For more information about public record data, see EPIC's PublicRecords Page:

Rights & Democracy has announced that it is accepting nominations forthis year's John Humphrey Freedom Award, which is presented each yearto an organization or person who has made an outstanding contributionto the promotion of human rights and democratic development. TheAward is named in honor of John Peters Humphrey, an internationallyrenowned human rights lawyer who prepared the first draft of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. The award includes a $25,000CDN prize and a speaking tour of Canadian cities to raise publicawareness of the recipient's work on behalf of human rights. Thedeadline for nominations is April 30, 2004.

For more information about the 2004 John Humphrey Freedom Award, seethe Rights & Democracy website:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: Ben Franklin's Web Site

Ben Franklin's Web Site: Privacy and Curiosity from Plymouth Rock tothe Internet, by Robert Ellis Smith (March 2004).
"Privacy Journal has updated and reprinted its acclaimed account ofprivacy in American history, Ben Franklin's Web Site, by PrivacyJournal Publisher Robert Ellis Smith.

Privacy Journal launched the second printing because severaluniversity courses now use the book as a text. 'We published it thistime as a trade paperback and as an e-book,' said Smith.

The new book explores hidden niches of American history to discoverthe tug between Americans' yearning for privacy and their insatiablecuriosity. 'It is a delightful read for everyone in business,
government, the legal professions, and academia who want historicalinsights -- and great quotations,' according to the preeminent privacyexpert Alan F. Westin. The Wall Street Journal said of Smith's book,
'This is the most practical of these books, with its mix of readablehistory and sensible advice on what do about your own privacy.'"

-- From Privacy Journal

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

Internet Commons Congress. Inflexion Communications and New Yorkersfor Fair Use. March 24-25, 2004. Washington, DC. For moreinformation:

Book Party: Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law toLock Down Culture and Control Creativity. Book Signings by LawrenceLessig. Interactive Applications Group. March 25, 2004. Washington,
DC. Email

Workshop: From RFID to Smart Dust: the Expanding Market for WirelessSensor Technologies. Department of Commerce NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration. April 1, 2004.
Washington, DC. Email

FRAMED!! How Law Constructs and Constrains Culture. The Center forthe Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School. April 2, 2004.
Durham, NC. For more information:

Debate on Domestic Spying with EPIC's Marc Rotenberg and Former DeputyAttorney General Victoria Toensing. Justice Talking. April 12, 2004.
For more information:

Workshop: Monitoring Software on Your PC: Spyware, Adware, and OtherSoftware. Federal Trade Commission. April 19, 2004. Washington, DC.
For more information:

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

29th Annual AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. April 22-23,
2004. Washington, DC. For more information:

2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE 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:

Global ICT Summit 2004: From Adversity to Success? The World's Beste-Content & e-Creativity Experience. World Summit Award, GlobalAlliance for Bridging the Digital Divide, World Wide Web ConsortiumHong Kong, Internet Professionals Association, Hong Kong Cyberport,
and Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. May 11-14, 2004. HongKong. For more information:

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

Critical Infrastructure Information: Conference on the Issues.
American University. May 14-16, 2004. Washington, DC.

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

RSA Conference 2004. RSA Security. May 31-June 1, 2004. Tokyo,
Japan. For more information:

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: New Developments & ComplianceIssues in a Security-Conscious World. Practising Law Institute. June7-8, 2004. San Francisco, CA. For more information:

TRUSTe Symposium: Privacy Futures. June 9-11, 2004. InternationalAssociation of Privacy Professionals. San Francisco, CA. For moreinformation:

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:

13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: ThePower of People & Technology. June 11-13, 2004. Seattle, Washington.
For more information:

Fifth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: New Developments & ComplianceIssues in a Security-Conscious World. Practising Law Institute. June21-22, 2004. New York, NY. For more information:

PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, andContent-Distribution Systems. PORTIA Project. July 8-9, 2004.
Stanford, CA. 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:

The Right to Personal Data Protection -- the Right to Dignity. 26thInternational Conference on Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.
September 14-16, 2004. Wroclaw, Poland. For more information:

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:

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 11.06


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback