WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 8

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

EPIC Alert 11.08 [2004] EPICAlert 8 (29 April 2004)








EPIC ALERT


Volume 11.08 April 29, 2004


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

http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.08.html


Table of Contents



[1] EPIC Files Gmail FOIA Requests; Groups Call for System Suspension

[2] EPIC Files Brief in Maryland DNA Database Case
[3] EPIC Urges FCC to Reject Expansion of CALEA
[4] American Airlines Admits Disclosing Passenger Data
[5] New U.S. Election Assistance Commission Begins its Work
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

F R E E D O M 2 . 0 : D I S T R I B U T E D D E M O C R A C Y - Dialogue for a Connected World
Democracy * Transparency * Privacy * Public Voice
May 20-22, 2004 * Washington, DC
Register today at http://www.epic04.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



[1] EPIC Files Gmail FOIA Requests; Groups Call for System Suspension


Today, EPIC filed Freedom of Information requests with federal lawenforcement and intelligence agencies seeking records concerning "useof Google search technology for law enforcement and intelligencepurposes, and particularly the possible use of Google's Gmail servicefor law enforcement and intelligence investigations." The requestsnote that Google's Gmail is capable of performing functions for lawenforcement and intelligence agencies that have been the subject ofCongressional action and widespread public debate. Gmail is capableof storing a vast amount of personal communications data for linkanalysis, creating a honey pot for law enforcement requests to pervertthe system for surveillance.

Earlier, thirty-one privacy and civil liberties groups called uponGoogle to suspend Gmail, a free webmail system that provides userswith an entire gigabyte of storage space but also scans the content ofall e-mails for placement of advertising. Gmail raises a series ofimportant privacy issues and has sparked a lively debate in thetechnology community regarding informed consent, risks associated withpenetrating into the content of messages for advertising purposes, andthe problem of law enforcement access to e-mail communications. Thedebate has been especially contentious because many computer usershave great admiration for the company's search product and do not wishto see Google's friendly reputation change with the advent of invasivenew products or its business methods deteriorate after a publicoffering that will necessarily orient its duties towards maximizingshareholder profit.

The groups raised a series of risks to privacy posed by the service.
First, the scanning of the actual content of e-mail messages forplacement of advertising is an unprecedented invasion into thesanctity of communications. It is likely to reduce expectation ofprivacy in e-mail, and provide justifications for communicationsscanning for other purposes. Federal law sets forth some of thestrongest protections for the content of communications, oftenreferred to collectively as the "Title III warrant," which requireprobable cause, can only be triggered by the commission of seriouscriminal acts, and have accountability provisions including reportingand the ability to sue individuals who eavesdrop withoutjustification. Gmail's defenders have claimed that scanning for adplacement is similar to scanning for spam, and that it can occurlawfully under an exception under wiretapping laws for maintenance ofcommunications network. But this is a an improper invocation of theexemption -- it was created to ensure quality and integrity of thenetwork, not to provide an "anything goes" exemption to wiretappinglaws. For instance, telephone companies use the exemption to listento calls to test audio quality; if the companies started actuallyextracting content from these conversations, the exemption wouldeviscerate the protections of the law and violate the expectations oftelephone users.

Google has countered this criticism by emphasizing that a computer,
not a human, will scan the content of the e-mail, thereby making thesystem less invasive. The letter points out that computers can bemore privacy invasive and, in fact, many privacy laws have passedbecause of the heightened privacy risks associated with computers'
storage, memory, and associative capabilities. Regulations limitingtelephone autodialers are such an example, where the persistence andcapacity of a computer to initiate telemarketing calls faster thanhumans sparked the creation of two federal telemarketing laws in the1990s.

Second, Google's data retention policies and enticements to users tokeep their e-mail for a long time create privacy risks under federalwiretapping laws. After 180 days, e-mail can be obtained by lawenforcement with a mere subpoena rather than a full probable causewarrant. Elsewhere in the world, law enforcement is lobbying formandatory data retention requirements that allow police to gain accessto years of stored communications with little legal oversight. Ineffect, Gmail's retention implements these policies, and willfacilitate law enforcement access to communications in some cases evenafter messages are deleted by the user.

A third problem arises from the risk that Google will link itspersistent search engine cookie with individuals' identities revealedby Gmail. This is not unlike the DoubleClick/Abacus debate, whereDoubleClick could have linked its anonymous online tracking recordswith millions of identifiable records possessed by Abacus. Google hasrefused to promise not to link the two cookies.

Finally, Gmail scans both the mail sent and received on the account.
This raises serious quality of consent issues for senders of mail tothe Gmail domain and may violate more stringent state wiretapping andinternational privacy laws.

EPIC's FOIA Request:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/foirequest.html

Coalition Letter:

http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm



[2] EPIC Files Brief in Maryland DNA Database Case


EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in Maryland v. Raines, acase that will determine whether compelled DNA production is anunreasonable search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment andthe Constitution of Maryland.

The case challenges the Maryland DNA Collection Act, which allows theState of Maryland to collect DNA from individuals who have committedfelonies and certain misdemeanor offenses. Earlier this year, theMaryland General Assembly considered expanding the law to requirecollection of DNA from arrestees. Profiles of collected DNA are addedto a state DNA database, which feeds into a national DNA databaseknown as the Combined DNA Index System or CODIS, which is maintainedby the FBI.

EPIC's brief first pointed out that in many areas of the law Marylandprovides stronger privacy protection than the federal FourthAmendment. EPIC then challenged the fallacy that collecting DNA andtaking fingerprints involve the same privacy concerns. While afingerprint merely indicates whether an individual has been in aspecific location, DNA can reveal health, gender, and familialinformation, EPIC argued. Furthermore, because members of the samefamily have similar DNA patterns, an individual's DNA profile mayindirectly implicate a relative. Moreover, there is no uniformstorage policy for DNA samples. Rather, each state has a differentpolicy, and Maryland's is to retain samples indefinitely. Not onlycould samples end up in the hands of researchers, but internationalcooperation among law enforcement agencies has opened CODIS up toother governments.

EPIC recently filed an amicus brief in United States v. Kincade, acase in which a parolee has challenged the federal DNA AnalysisBacklog Elimination Act of 2000, which allows the government to takeDNA samples from individuals in federal custody and parolees who havecommitted a qualifying offense.

EPIC's amicus brief in Maryland v. Raines:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/genetic/raines_amicus.pdf

EPIC's amicus brief in United States v. Kincade:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/genetic/kincade_brief.pdf

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

http://www.epic.org/privacy/genetic



[3] EPIC Urges FCC to Reject Expansion of CALEA


EPIC has filed comments urging the Federal Communications Commissionto reject the request of federal law enforcement agencies to expandthe Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA)
to cover Internet Service Providers and "Voice over IP" services.
CALEA currently requires telecommunications service providers toprovide wiretapping access to law enforcement, but does not apply toVoice over IP (VoIP) or Internet Service Providers. The Department ofJustice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Drug EnforcementAdministration have petitioned the FCC to regulate Internet telephonyin such a way that CALEA can be legally and technically applied. VoIPproviders would have to rewire their networks to governmentspecifications so that law enforcement officials could more easilylisten in to VoIP calls. In its comments, EPIC brought to theCommission's attention the limitations in the language of CALEA,
information obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Actdemonstrating likelihood of capturing information on non-suspects, andstatements by the Department of Justice that show there is nodemonstrable need for the request to expand CALEA.

EPIC pointed out that Congress intentionally limited the scope ofCALEA. The language of CALEA unambiguously excludes informationservices such as e-mail and Internet access. The legislative historyof CALEA unequivocally states that "[t]he only entities required tocomply with the functional requirements are telecommunications commoncarriers, the components of the public-switched network where lawenforcement agencies have always served most of their surveillanceorders." The legislative history is equally clear that "excluded from[CALEA's] coverage are "all information services, such as Internetservice providers or services such as Prodigy and America-On-Line."
The narrow scope of CALEA's mandate is best summarized by thelegislative history's explanation that "the bill does not requirereengineering of the Internet, nor does it impose prospectivelyfunctional requirements on the Internet[.]" In light of the clearCongressional intent that information services be excluded from theCALEA requirements, an extension of surveillance requirements to suchnetworks could only occur if Congress revisited CALEA and addressedthe Justice Department's concerns. EPIC argued that it is not for theCommission to extend the statutory mandate to networks andtechnologies that Congress clearly sought to exclude.

Second, EPIC stated, law enforcement access to network traffic canresult in the interception of communications of third parties notnamed or identified in court surveillance orders -- a phenomenon thatnever occurred in the traditional, circuit-switched telephoneenvironment. As such, the expansion of CALEA's technical requirementsurged by the Justice Department would make it difficult, if notimpossible, for carriers to comply with the statutory command thatthey protect "the privacy and security of communications andcall-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted."
Internal FBI documents obtained by EPIC through Freedom of InformationAct litigation show, beyond question, that surveillance conducted inpacket-mode environments can result -- and indeed has resulted -- inthe unauthorized capture of third-party communications. As thecomments state, "the Commission would abdicate its responsibility to'protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized tobe intercepted' were it to expand CALEA's reach in the manner [theJustice Department] suggests."

Finally, EPIC argued that the Department of Justice has not met itsburden of demonstrating the need for the proceeding it requests or theremedy it seeks. In its "field guidance" discussing the USA PATRIOTAct amendments relating to electronic surveillance, the JusticeDepartment acknowledged that it is only in "infrequent cases" thatInternet Service Providers are not able to provide law enforcementwith requested information. The Justice Department admits that evenin the "rare" and "infrequent" cases where service providers cannotfully comply with a court order, law enforcement has, through the useof its own technology, been able to obtain the information it seeks(and, as EPIC has shown, sometimes more than that).

EPIC comments on CALEA:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/calea/caleacomment4.12.04.pdf

For more information about CALEA, see EPIC's Wiretapping Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/#DT



[4] American Airlines Admits Disclosing Passenger Data


American Airlines recently became the third commercial airline toadmit turning over passenger information to the United Statesgovernment or its contractors without the knowledge or consent ofaffected passengers. American announced that Airline Automation, avendor working for the airline, gave 1.2 million passenger records inJune 2002 to four companies that were competing for contracts with theTransportation Security Administration. The airline conceded that ithad authorized the records to be disclosed to the agency, but not thecontractors. Airline Automation disputed American's version ofevents, contending that the airline merely said that it would receiveinstructions from the Transportation Security Administration, whichthen asked that the data be transferred directly to the contractors"testing aviation security systems" for the agency.

The Transportation Security Administration has repeatedly denied toCongress and the public that actual passenger information has beenused to test the controversial second generation Computer AssistedPassenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II. CAPPS II has been thetarget of Congressional scrutiny since the General Accounting Officereleased a report in February concluding that major concerns about theprogram previously identified by Congress had not been adequatelyaddressed.

The Department of Homeland Security, parent agency of theTransportation Security Administration, has announced that it isinvestigating the government's role in the disclosure.

In related news, the European Parliament has passed a resolutionchallenging the European Commission's temporary agreement to shareairline passenger data with the United States government. TheParliament also asked the European Union's top court to determinewhether the agreement violates European privacy laws and whether theParliament's consent is necessary for the agreement to enter intoforce. If the court finds that the agreement violates European laws,
it will be annulled or declared invalid.

Press Release, American Airlines, American Airlines Passenger DataReleased In June 2002 (April 9, 2004):

http://www.amrcorp.com/newsreleases.html
Press Release, Airline Automation, Airline Automation, Inc. ProvidedData With the Consent of American Airlines, Inc. (April 10, 2004):

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040410/nysa008_1.html

For more information about the EU/U.S. agreement to share passengerdata, see EPIC's EU/U.S. Passenger Data Disclosure Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html



[5] New U.S. Election Assistance Commission Begins its Work


After the 2000 presidential election, many flaws in our nation'santiquated voting system were highlighted by a protracted recount ofFlorida ballots that culminated in a legal challenge to the processbrought by then-candidate George W. Bush before the Supreme Court.

Congress sought to remedy many of the problems identified by theapparent closeness of the presidential contest in Florida through thepassage of the Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law onOctober 29, 2002. The law, among other things, created a four-memberCommission to lead a new agency, the U.S. Election AdministrationCommission, which is expressly charged with formulating andimplementing improvements in our nation's voting system. The Act alsoestablished a provisional ballot right for voters to insure that allthose who enter polling places to cast their votes on Election Daywill have the opportunity to do so. In addition, the law directedthat all punch card and lever voting machines be replaced by eitheroptical scan or direct recording electronic voting technology.

The Senate confirmed the Commission's four members on December 9,
2003. Two members, each serving for four years, are Chairman DeforestB. Soaries, Jr. of New Jersey, and Commissioner Raymundo Martinez IIIof Texas. The other two members, who will serve for two years, areVice Chair Gracia M. Hillman of the District of Columbia andCommissioner Paul S. DeGregorio of Missouri. The Commission held itsfirst official public meeting on March 23, 2004 and will hold itsfirst public hearing on May 5, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. on the PresentStatus of Computerized Electronic Voting Systems. The Commission willhear testimony from several groups of experts sitting on theTechnology Panel, Vendor Panel, Election Administrator Panel, ResearchPanel and Advocacy Organization Panel. The hearing is open to thepublic and will take place at U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyHeadquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, in Room 3000, Rachel L.
Carson Great Hall, Ariel Rios North Building, Washington, DC.

Soon the Election Assistance Commission will announce its choices tofill the fourteen positions of the Technical Guidelines DevelopmentCommittee, which will be chaired by the Director of the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology. The Committee will developstandards and make recommendations on electronic voting technology tothe Commission. Congress' fiscal year 2004 appropriations for theCommission were only $1.5 million of the authorized $10 million.
Funding to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to dowork on e-voting technology standards, as directed by law, was alsodecreased. In fact, Congress cut overall funding to the agency byestimates of as much as 14 percent, of which about 4 percent came fromthe computer security research area.

At the beginning of this month, the Commission moved from temporaryoffice space with the Federal Election Commission to its own addressat 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005.

Help America Vote Act:

http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm

Federal Election Commission:

http://www.fec.gov

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

http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting



[6] News in Brief


JUSTICE DEPT. WITHDRAWS RECORDS SUBPOENA
The Department of Justice has withdrawn its subpoena for abortionrecords from New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The agency was seekingthe records for its defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in atrial taking place in the federal court for the Southern District ofNew York. The hospital had appealed the subpoena to the SecondCircuit Court of Appeals, and the appeal was pending while the trialwas in progress. By withdrawing its subpoena, the Justice Departmenthas cleared the way for closing arguments in the trial. The New Yorktrial is one of three trials on the constitutionality of the PartialBirth Abortion Ban taking place across the country.

For more information about medical records privacy, see EPIC's MedicalPrivacy Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical

EPIC CALLS FOR PRIVACY-FRIENDLY FREE CREDIT REPORT SITE
In passing the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003,
Congress directed the Federal Trade Commission to implement acentralized source where individuals could obtain a free credit reportannually from each of the three nationwide credit reporting agencies.
In comments to the Commission, EPIC was joined by Professor DanielSolove in arguing that individuals should be able to use the source toobtain credit reports without allowing credit reporting agencies toresell their personal information. The comments also attempt to limitthe credit reporting agencies' ability to claim that there are toomany requests, thus justifying a delay in delivery of the creditreport. Already under the law, the credit reporting agencies have afull fifteen days to comply with a request for a report. The commentsargue that no more delay is necessary, as the credit reportingagencies regularly provide reports to retailers and other creditorswithin seconds of making a request.

EPIC Comments on Free Credit Reports:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra/freereport.html

For more information about credit reporting, see EPIC's Fair CreditReporting Act Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra

EPIC, PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL HOLD BIG BROTHER AWARDS
EPIC and Privacy International recently held the 6th Annual U.S. BigBrother Awards, which are bestowed upon government and private sectororganizations that have done the most to invade personal privacy inthe United States. Instead of the trademark "boot on the head" goldenstatue of previous years, the "winners" were given large rolls of redtape to symbolize the growing frustration and delay individuals aresubjected to as a result of privacy-invasive security measures. Therecipient of the "Perversion of Justice" award was Seisint for itsrole in creating the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information ExchangeProgram (MATRIX). "The Bureaucratic Indifference" award went to theTransportation Security Administration for its operation of the"No-Fly" list, a database of individuals that is distributed toairlines for purposes of stopping or searching suspected individuals.
Northwest Airlines was given the "Blurring the Borders" award for itssecret disclosure of passenger information to the government.
California Senator Liz Figueroa received the one honor of the evening,
the Brandeis Award, to honor her excellent work to protect andchampion privacy.

For more information about the awards, see the Privacy InternationalBig Brother Awards Page:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/us2004

EPIC PUBLISHES NANOTECHNOLOGY PRIVACY PAGE
EPIC has published a new web page discussing the ethical and privacyimplications of nanotechnology. The page was authored by Universityof Pennsylvania law student Eva Gutierrez. It traces the history ofnanotechnology, funding for the field, the ethical implications of thetechnology, and privacy issues raised. Nanotechnology has profoundpotential for addressing environmental, health, and many other issues;
it also raises new environmental, health, and privacy risks. Ms.
Gutierrez's previous work for EPIC focused on firearms privacy, andher research highlighted the strong substantive and proceduralprotections for privacy of gun owners.

EPIC's Nanotechnology Privacy Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/nano

EPIC's Firearms Privacy Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/firearms



[7] EPIC Bookstore: MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country


MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country: How the Find Your PoliticalVoice and Become a Catalyst for Change, MoveOn.org (Inner OceanPublishing, Inc. 2004)

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=7-193072229x-0

Launched several years ago in response to the Clinton impeachment,
MoveOn is an activist group that strives to engage ordinary people inpolitics through electronic advocacy. MoveOn recently expanded itsactivism efforts to a more old fashioned medium -- paper -- when itpublished its advocacy guide MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country:
How the Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change.

MoveOn asked its members to send in stories describing how they workedto change the political landscape. After receiving 2,500 narrativesof political action, MoveOn published 50 short essays from authorsranging in age from 16 to 82, living everywhere from Maine to Hawaii,
all of whom share a passion for contributing to the political process.
Each essayist describes an effort that he or she undertook to connectwith others, encourage voter registration and turn out, harness thepower of the media, personalize the political process, or make thepolitical process personal. MoveOn adds tips to each essay to helpreaders successfully carry out that particular "way to love yourcountry."

One of the essayists is EPIC Senior Policy Analyst Lillie Coney, whoworked with the Beaumont, Texas Get Out the Vote project in 1978 toencourage the area's African-American community to vote in largenumbers. By increasing voter registration and promoting awareness ofthe population's voting strength, the project raised the number ofvoters from one or two in each African-American household to as manyas six. That year, voter participation among the African-Americanpopulation in Jefferson County, which includes several cities, rosefrom averages between 26 and 47 percent to over 50 percent during theprimary, and almost 80 percent in the November general election. As aresult, Lillie writes, "the once-ignored black vote became a symbol ofraw political power, with enough influence to determine the outcome ofcritical local, state, and federal primary and general elections."

This guide to activism is full of stories like Lillie's, highlightingwork that brings transparency to the political process by offeringideas for effective action. This quick read provides inspiration anddirection for those who are dissatisfied with the state of politicsand want to change the situation, but aren't sure how or what to do.

These essays make clear that action is power. As Al Gore says in hisessay, "Woody Allen has famously said that 90 percent of success isshowing up. That's true of democracy too. I'd argue that the other 10is making sure you're registered beforehand."

- Marcia Hofmann


EPIC Publications:

"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, InternationalLaw, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2003

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.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2002

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.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2003

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.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0

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.
http://www.epic.org/cls

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:
$20. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/crypto00&

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 http://www.epic.org/bookstore

"EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books http://www.powells.com/features/epic/epic.html



[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events


Innovation Law and Policy Colloquium. Bell University LaboratoriesCentre for Innovation Law and Policy, University of Toronto. April28, 2004. Toronto, Canada. Email rsvp.bul at utoronto.ca.

Fourth Annual Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit. Future ofMusic Coalition. May 2-3, 2004. Washington, DC. For moreinformation: http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit04.

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:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/oakland04-cfp.html.

International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in a GlobalSociety. Wessex Institute. May 11-13, 2004. Skiathos, Greece. Formore information:
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2004/datasecurity04/index.html.

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:
http://www.esdlife.com/campaign/Global-ICT.

Access to Information 2004. The Constitution Unit. May 12, 2004.
London, England. E-mail samantha.boyle at capita.co.uk.

Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security.
University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center. May 13-14, 2004.
Minneapolis, MN. For more information:
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/weis2004.

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

Freedom 2.0: Distributed Democracy. Dialogue for a Connected World.
Electronic Privacy Information Center. May 20-22, 2004. Washington,
DC. For more information: http://www.epic04.org.

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

RSA Conference 2004. RSA Security. May 31-June 1, 2004. Tokyo,
Japan. For more information:
http://www.medialive.jp/events/rsa2004/eng/default.html.

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:
http://www.pli.edu.

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

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:
http://www.govsource.net/programs/iapp/conference/main.nclk.

13th Annual CTCNet Conference: Building Connected Communities: ThePower of People & Technology. June 11-13, 2004. Seattle, Washington.
For more information: http://www2.ctcnet.org/conf/2004/session.asp.

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: http://www.pli.edu.

PORTIA Workshop on Sensitive Data in Medical, Financial, andContent-Distribution Systems. PORTIA Project. July 8-9, 2004.
Stanford, CA. For more information:
http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/workshop.html.

O'Reilly Open Source Convention. July 26-30, 2004. Portland, OR. Formore information: http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon.

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:
http://www.ceas.cc.

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:
http://www.iacr.org/conferences/crypto2004.

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:
http://www.giodo.gov.pl/252/j/en.

2004 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. National Centerfor Technology & Law, George Mason University School of Law. October1-3, 2004. Arlington, VA. For more information:
http://www.tprc.org/TPRC04/call04.htm.


Subscription Information


Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:

https://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/epic_news
Back issues are available at:

http://www.epic.org/alert

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, seehttp://www.epic.org 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:

http://www.epic.org/donate

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 11.08

.


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICAlert/2004/8.html