WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2004 >> [2004] EPICAlert 9

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

EPIC Alert 11.09 [2004] EPICAlert 9


Volume 11.09 May 13, 2004

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

Table of Contents

[1] FOIA Doc Shows Massive Disclosure of Passenger Data to FBI
[2] Wiretap Reports Released; Secret Warrants Exceed Standard Warrants
[3] Groups Ask California to Investigate Google's Gmail
[4] EPIC Urges Opt-In Privacy for Wireless Devices
[5] Commission Holds Hearing on E-Voting Technology
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: All The Laws But One
[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

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

[1] FOIA Doc Shows Massive Disclosure of Passenger Data to FBI

EPIC has received new information about Northwest Airlines' disclosureof passenger information to the government through Freedom ofInformation Act litigation in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California. Most significantly, one document revealedthat the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained one full year'sworth of passenger data from Northwest after 9/11. The documentreveals that the amount of personal data was so vast that the airlineprovided the data to the FBI on 6000 CDs. In an article based uponthis new information, the New York Times confirmed that the Bureauacquired passenger data not only from Northwest, but from other U.S.
air carriers, as well.

Other documents turned over by NASA as a result of EPIC's lawsuitdetail the agency's receipt and use of passenger data from Northwest.
The agency also filed a "Vaughn index," which describes otherdocuments the agency has withheld and states NASA's justification fornot releasing the material.

Additional information released by the agency shows that NASAresearchers informed the Transportation Security Administration thatNASA was using Northwest passenger data to conduct research onpassenger screening systems. TSA expressed an interest in"understanding the NASA-NWA relationship." These e-mail messages(which have been withheld) "represent an exchange between NASA and TSAdiscussing areas of cooperation between the two government agencies ona new passenger screening system." The subject line of one e-mailmessage specifically references TSA's controversial second-generationComputer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II,

Further, after funding for NASA's passenger screening research wasapparently discontinued, agency researchers in February 2003"speculat[ed] as to whether any other program could use the[Northwest] data." One e-mail message "identifies other possible usesfor the NWA data." An unreleased December 2002 e-mail message wassent "from the lead researcher discussing the advantages of the NWAdatabase for future government research."

Internal NASA e-mail mentioning Northwest's disclosure of passengerinformation to the FBI:

NASA's Vaughn index of withheld documents:

For more information about Northwest's disclosure of passengerinformation, see EPIC's Northwest Data Disclosure Page:

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

[2] Wiretap Reports Released; Secret Warrants Exceed Standard Warrants

Two annual reports recently released by government agencies show thatsecret surveillance activity conducted by the United States hasincreased dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts reported thatstate and federal courts authorized an all-time high 1,442interceptions of wire, oral and electronic communications in 2003, anincrease of 6 percent over interceptions authorized in 2002. Theagency also reported that federal officials requested 578 interceptapplications in 2003, a 16 percent increase over those requested in2002. No wiretap applications were denied last year.

Further, the 2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) AnnualReport revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courtgranted 1724 applications for secret surveillance last year, more thanin any previous year and nearly twice the number granted in 2001. Thereport shows that 2003 was the first year in which more secretsurveillance warrants were granted than traditional "law enforcement"
wiretap warrants, which are issued only under a more stringent legalstandard. The report also reveals that a small number of applicationsfor secret surveillance were denied in 2003 for the first time.

The government is required by law to issue reports each year on theuse of standard and foreign intelligence authority. The FISA AnnualReport is infamously brief, typically only a few sentences.

The PATRIOT Act significantly expanded the government's authority tomake use of secret foreign intelligence surveillance, including inmatters where an investigation is related to a law enforcement matter.
The 2003 surveillance reports show that secret surveillance is now themost common form of surveillance used by the United States government.

2003 Wiretap Report:

2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report:

For more information about traditional law enforcement surveillance,
see EPIC's Wiretap Page:

For more information about secret surveillance, see EPIC's FISA Page:

[3] Groups Ask California to Investigate Google's Gmail

EPIC, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and the World Privacy Forum calledupon the California Attorney General to investigate Google's Gmailservice for violation of wiretapping laws. Gmail is a free webmailservice that includes a gigabyte of storage for each subscriber. Inorder to offset the cost of this amount of storage, Gmail displayscontextual marketing to the subscriber that is based on the actualcontent of the e-mail communication. The groups alleged that thistargeting, based on the content of the communication, violatesCalifornia's Invasion of Privacy Act, which requires the consent ofall parties to a communication before it can be intercepted.

The letter starts by recounting California's history of protectingprivacy from threats posed by both government and the private sector.
A California appellate court once noted: "That common experience makesit only too evident that personal privacy is threatened by theinformation-gathering capabilities and activities not just ofgovernment, but of private business as well. If the right of privacyis to exist as more than a memory or a dream, the power of both publicand private institutions to collect and preserve data about individualcitizens must be subject to constitutional control. Any expectationsof privacy would indeed be illusory if only the government'scollection and retention of data were restricted." Additionally, theletter notes that in passing an amendment to the state's Constitution,
citizens were trying to address "the improper use of informationproperly obtained for a specific purpose, for example, the use of itfor another purpose."

The groups argued that Google fails to obtain the consent of allparties to e-mail communications when the company scans the contentfor marketing. In fact, there is no way that individuals can evenknow that directing e-mail to the domain would result in thecompany extracting content from the messages.

The groups addressed two of Google's arguments in defense of e-mailscanning. The company has argued that since a computer analyzes thecontent of communication rather than a person, there is no invasion ofprivacy. The groups responded by arguing that it is "nonsensical toconclude that computer scanning is per se less invasive than humanscanning. Computers possess nearly unlimited storage, scanning, andassociative capacity, therefore, they are able to perform the sameinvasions of privacy as humans, possibly more so, considering how moreefficiently computers are able to process data and perform key wordsearches." Google has also compared its scanning of content formarketing to spam scanning. The groups responded that spam scanningcan be considered to be actually necessary for providing e-mailservice, whereas direct marketing based on content has never beenconsidered necessary or even permissible.

In April, thirty-one privacy and civil liberties groups called uponGoogle voluntarily to suspend Gmail.

Group letter to the California Attorney General:

Coalition letter to Google requesting the suspension of Gmail:

[4] EPIC Urges Opt-In Privacy for Wireless Devices

In comments to the Federal Communications Commission, EPIC argued forstrong protections against "mobile service commercial messages"
(MSCMs), or spam that is sent to wireless devices. The agency isconsidering enhanced protections for MSCMs as a result of language inthe Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and MarketingAct of 2003, which preempted stronger state spam laws but called uponthe Commission to develop heightened protections against MSCMs. EPICemphasized that opt-in protections are necessary against MSCMs becausewireless phones are considered personal by their users, becauseindividuals often are charged for the bandwidth or on a per messagebasis for receiving wireless spam, and because adoption of wirelessdevices could be hampered if they become targets of relentlesscommercial interruption.

EPIC argued that under the Commission's authority to regulate"autodialers," devices that store and dial phone numbers, the agencycould place a flat ban on the sending of MSCMs without first obtainingthe recipient's affirmative consent. Alternatively, the Commissioncould establish opt-in protections against MSCMs since Congressdirected the agency to "provide subscribers to commercial mobileservices the ability to avoid receiving mobile service commercialmessages unless the subscriber has provided express priorauthorization to the sender."

The comments also argued that "affirmative consent" should beexpressed in written form. Without a writing, senders of wirelessspam will claim that the recipient consented to the MSCM, therebyrequiring the recipient to prove that he didn't consent, which oftenis impossible. EPIC also noted that service providers should not beexempt from the opt-in rules. Service providers have set up difficultto use opt-out procedures, and AT&T once even engaged in marketresearch to determine how to craft notices that recipient would ignoreand thus fail to take action to protect their rights.

EPIC's wireless spam comments:

[5] Commission Holds Hearing on E-Voting Technology

On May 5 the U.S. Election Assistance Commission held its first publichearing on the use, security, and reliability of electronic votingsystems. The Commission heard from witnesses representing technology,
vendor, election administration, research/human interaction factors,
and advocacy organizations who related their interests and concernsabout the use of electronic voting technology.

During the hearing, Chairman DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., stated that theCommission would probably not recommend requiring paper receipts whenit makes preliminary recommendations, which may be made public withinthe next week. Further, he said that states would be allowed to settheir priorities pertaining to the use of voting technology in theelection year. It is estimated that about 20 states are consideringlegislation that would require a paper record of each vote cast ondirect recording electronic voting machines, also known as touchscreenvoting machines.

The five participants on the vendors panel represented the largest ofthe electronic voting technology companies: Hart Intercivic, Diebold,
Avante, Election Systems & Software, and Sequoia. Each representativeexcept Avante's Founder and CEO spoke against the inclusion of paperballots with DRE voting technology. However, most made it clear tothe Commission that they were prepared to add the feature if it becamea requirement. Although California recently decertified Diebold'svoting technology from use in the November 4, 2004, general election,
Diebold's director of marketing referenced Diebold equipments'
performance in that state's recent elections as an example of how wellthe company's technology performs.

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley offered testimony beforethe Commission on the election administrator panel in which he statedconcerns regarding the certification process currently in place forelectronic voting technology. Shelley reported that the State ofCalifornia was denied access to status information regarding thecertification of Diebold voting machines and was directed to seekanswers to its questions from the company. State electionsadministration panelists were supportive of current electronic votingequipment design and opposed the inclusion of printers to produce avoter verified paper ballot.

The work of the Commission has been greatly curtailed by a lack offunding. It received only $1.2 million of the $10 million authorizedfor its use in the Help America Vote Act. On May 12, the Commissionwent before Hill appropriators to request funding for the next fiscalyear, scheduled to begin October 1, 2004. Chairman Soaries, appearingbefore the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee onTransportation, Treasure, and Independent Agencies Committee,
requested an extra $10 million for research so that the Commissioncould gather necessary data in order to assist the Commission informulating recommendations on the administration of public elections.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Hearing:

National Committee for Voting Integrity:

For more information about electronic voting, see the EPIC VotingPage:

[6] News in Brief

The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, S. 1301, has passed by voice votein the House Judiciary Committee. Termed the "cell-phone camera snoopban" in the media, this bill would prohibit image capture by anymeans, such as videotaping, photographing, and broadcasting, ofcertain parts of an individual's unclothed body without his or herconsent. Specifically, it would ban the intentional image capture ofan individual's naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area,
buttocks, or female breast under circumstances in which the individualhas a reasonable expectation of privacy in such body parts. Instancesof such a reasonable expectation of privacy involve circumstances inwhich a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobein privacy, without being concerned that his or her image was beingvideotaped, photographed, filmed, broadcast, or otherwise recorded byany means; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believethat his or her naked or undergarment-clad pubic area, buttocks,
genitals, or female breast would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area. TheVideo Voyeurism Prevention Act, which was referred to the HouseCommittee after it passed the Senate in September, will make such anact a crime punishable by fine or up to a year in prison.

Text of S. 1301:

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley recently announced thatthe state has banned the use of any voting system that does notprovide a paper ballot. Specifically, California has banned the useof touchscreen voting systems for use in state elections untilsecurity measures are in place to safeguard the November vote. TheCalifornia March 2, 2004 primary election presented a host of problemsto voters and election day workers, resulting in approximately 7,000voters in Orange County receiving incorrect computer access codes tocast ballots. Poll workers unfamiliar with how the district'selectronic voting technology worked made the error that resulted invoters receiving the wrong ballots to cast their votes. Thisexperience closely followed the California Governor's recall electionin October 2003, during which electronic voting machines supplied byDiebold were reported to have used uncertified changes to software.

California Report "On the Investigation of Diebold Election System,

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley Press Release:

A Florida court has ruled that the State's Legislature and GovernorJeb Bush violated the due process and privacy rights of TheresaSchiavo by intervening to keep the severely brain damaged woman alive.
Schiavo has been in a vegetative state for fourteen years and hasbecome the center of an intense, emotional fight over end-of-lifedecisionmaking. After a court-appointed doctor determined thatSchiavo had no possibility of recovery, her feeding tube was removed,
sparking the Florida Legislature to pass "Terri's Law," which resultedin the Governor exercising a new power to intervene in the woman'scase. Florida Sixth Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird ruled last weekthat "By substituting the personal judgment of the governor for thatof the 'patient,' [Terri's Law] deprives every individual who issubject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed rightto the privacy of his or her own medical decision. To preserve thepromise of individual liberty and freedom, the Florida Constitutionguarantees to every citizen the right to be the master of his or herown personal private medial decisions. [Terri's Law] authorizes anunjustifiable state interference with the privacy right of everyindividual who falls within its terms without any semblance of dueprocess protection. The statute is facially unconstitutional as amatter of law."

The case highlights the need for awareness of "advance directives" orliving wills that allow individuals to make end of life decisionsprivately before an accident or serious illness occurs. All fiftystates have legislation recognizing the legitimacy of such directives,
and information about them is available from the following sources.

American Bar Association, " Shape Your Health Care Future with HealthCare Advance Directives":

Partnership for Caring:

A study conducted by the Rand Corporation National Defense ResearchInstitute has concluded that web sites currently censored as homelandsecurity risks should be reopened. The censored web sites containinformation about airports, power plants, military bases and otherpossible terrorist targets; however, the Institute found thisinformation is freely available elsewhere and easily obtainable. Thestudy identified a total of 629 databases accessible online and foundthat the restriction of just four of the databases would benefithomeland security, less than 1 percent of the total examined.
According to the report, the remaining 559 databases "are probably notsignificant for addressing attackers' information needs and do notwarrant any type of public restriction."

Mapping the Risks: Assessing the Homeland Security Implications ofPublicly Available Geospatial Information:

The Canadian government recently broke the second step of athree-phase agreement with the Canadian arm of United States-basedcorporation Lockheed Martin under which the company would haveprovided services for a 2006 national survey and mini-census. Thegovernment will not be penalized for breaking the final phase of thecontract, which actually involved software for the 2006 nationalcensus. Numerous organizations had lobbied the government to drop thedeal because of concerns about how individuals' private informationcould be used by a company closely linked to United States defenseinterests. The director of the 2006 census confirmed that thecontract was terminated due to confidentiality and privacy concerns.

For more information about privacy of census information, see EPIC'sCensus Privacy Page:

EPIC recently joined twenty-nine privacy, immigration and civilliberties organizations urging the Department of Homeland Security todevelop a straightforward redress policy for visitors to the UnitedStates who are adversely affected by the US-VISIT program, whichtracks the entry and exit of visitors to the United States. In aletter to the agency noting the program's "enormous potential forerror, invasion of privacy, and violation of international privacylaws and human rights standards," the coalition called for a redressprocedure allowing for fair review and rapid appeals. The coalitionalso suggested that an independent evaluation of US-VISIT beconducted.

Coalition letter on US-VISIT's redress procedure:
For more information about the US-VISIT program, see EPIC's US-VISITPage:

Privacy International, in association with Liberty, Statewatch, and the Foundation for Information Policy Research, willhost an event on May 19 entitled "Mistaken Identity: A Public Meetingon the Government's Proposed National Identity Card." Key figures inthe fields of law, politics, security, technology and human rightswill discuss the UK government's proposed identity card, which islikely to have far-reaching implications for everyone residing in theUK. The meeting will be held at The Old Theatre, London School ofEconomics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.

Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's ProposedNational Identity Card:

[7] EPIC Bookstore: All The Laws But One

William H. Rehnquist, All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime(Knopf 1998).

At the beginning of the Civil War, Union troops traveling toWashington, DC to defend the nation's capital were attacked by angrymobs in Maryland. In the midst of these attacks, President AbrahamLincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, permitting the militaryto impose martial law on civilians and try them in military tribunals.
When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney rebuked Lincoln forthis action, the president commented that the Chief Justice'sinsistence upon preserving the writ of habeas corpus would allow "allthe laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go topieces, lest that one be violated." Lincoln, historically considereda champion of freedom and the rights of the man, subsequentlycurtailed many civil liberties for the duration of the conflict.

In All The Laws But One, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of theUnited States Supreme Court, examines the history of civil libertiesduring wartime and discusses situations in which the executive branchsuspended freedoms in the name of national security, sometimes withoutthe approval of Congress and the courts. Beginning with Lincoln'smeasures during the Civil War, Rehnquist traces the nation's historyof infringement upon civil liberties during times of conflict throughthe forced relocation of Japanese Americans to detainment camps duringWorld War II.

Rehnquist points out the excesses of civil liberties violations duringwartime -- during World War I, for example, editorial cartoonistscritical of the government's actions were prosecuted for sedition.
But Rehnquist, long deferential to government interests, defends thecurtailment of freedoms in some situations -- including, surprisingly,
some cases of detention of Japanese-Americans in camps during thesecond World War.

Rehnquist asserts that "It is neither desirable nor is it remotelylikely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartimeas it does in peace time." But, the Chief Justice continues, "it isboth desirable and likely that more careful attention will be paid bythe courts to the basis for the government's claims of necessity as abasis for curtailing civil liberty. The laws will thus not be silentin time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice."
Rehnquist's words, written a few years before the 9/11 terroristattacks, offer hope that the Supreme Court and other courts mayconsider themelves a last defense for freedoms when the country isunder duress, and are prepared to scrutinize heavily any infringementupon civil liberties.

- Marcia Hofmann

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

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. Emailsimpson at

Mistaken Identity: A Public Meeting on the Government's ProposedIdentity Card. Privacy International in association with Liberty,
Statewatch, and the Foundation for Information PolicyResearch. May 19, 2004. London, England. For more information:

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

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, WA. Formore information:

Knowledge Held Hostage? Scholarly Versus Corporate Rights in theDigital Age. Annenberg Public Policy Center and Rice University inassociation with Public Knowledge and the Center for Public Domain.
June 18, 2004. Philadelphia, PA. 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:

Managing the Privacy Revolution 2004: New Challenges, New Strategies,
New Dangers. Privacy & American Business. June 22-24, 2003.
Washington, DC. E-mail info at

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.
For more 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."

About EPIC

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interestresearch center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 tofocus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the ClipperChip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medicalrecord privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.
EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Actlitigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248(fax).

If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic PrivacyInformation Center, contributions are welcome and fullytax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you cancontribute online at:

Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act andFirst Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for theright of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation ofencryption and expanding wiretapping powers.

Thank you for your support.

END EPIC Alert 11.09


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback