You are here:
WorldLII >>
Databases >>
EPIC Alert >>
2005 >>
[2005] EPICAlert 13
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Articles
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Help
EPIC Alert 12.12 [2005] EPICAlert 13
EPIC ALERT
Volume 12.12 June 16, 2005
Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_12.12.html
Table of Contents
[1] EPIC Documents Spark Congressional Inquiry
[2] REAL ID Next Steps Debated at EPIC's National ID Symposium
[3] US Backs Down on Biometric Passports for European Union
[4] USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Debates Heat Up
[5] Senators, FTC At Odds on Solutions to Curbing Identity Theft
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Johnny Long: Google Hacking for Penetration Testers
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
[1] EPIC Documents Spark Congressional Inquiry
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney has asked the Social SecurityAdministration to explain its new policy on disclosing personalinformation
to law enforcement officials investigating the terroristattacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Congresswoman Maloney is seeking to determinewhether
this policy violates the Privacy Act.
The request follows from a Freedom of Information Act request pursued byEPIC earlier this year. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that theagency adopted a broad "ad hoc" policy. They
show that the SocialSecurity Administration provides law enforcement agencies with personalinformation merely upon a request stating
that the data are sought "inconnection" with a 9/11 investigation. The documents also reveal that inthe days after 9/11, the Social
Security Administration created a"streamlined process" to "ensure expeditious and consistent processingof the requests" from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and otherfederal law enforcement agencies.
A Social Security Administration "policy instruction" encouraged agencypersonnel to "use their knowledge of [agency] records to be
as helpfulas possible" in responding to law enforcement requests. The instructiongives as an example how, given a limited request
to verify the match ofa name to a Social Security number, a particular printout can reveal"additional information relevant to the
investigation," such asbirthdates and other information in the agency records. Such disclosurescould be in violation of Exemption
7 of the Privacy Act, which limitsdisclosures for law enforcement purposes to the particular portion ofthe record that is requested.
In a letter to the Social Security Administration Commissioner,Representative Maloney has asked what specific changes the agency madein
its disclosure policy after 9/11 and whether the agency's changeswere prompted by requests from law enforcement. Representative Maloneyalso
requested clarification of how the new policy complies with thePrivacy Act, a federal statute that prohibits disclosure of recordscontaining
personal information for law enforcement purposes unless therequester specifies the law enforcement activity for which the record
issought.
The broad use of the agency's "ad hoc" disclosure policy represents aswitch from the Social Security Administration's codified policy.
Thepolicy followed before 9/11 specified only two situations in which theAdministration could disclose personal information to law
enforcement.
First, the agency could disclose information on a person who had beenindicted for or convicted of a violent crime. Second, personalinformation
could be disclosed when necessary to investigate orprosecute a crime involving the social security program. A decision todisclose
in any other circumstances, such as "when necessary to respondto life threatening situations," could be made only if not prohibited
byfederal law.
Much of the information the Administration maintains is highly personal,and participation in social security programs is mandatory.
Amplification of the agency's "ad hoc" policy, allowing disclosure ofsuch private data on persons whom the state is not prosecuting
for aviolent crime or social security fraud, gives the agency virtuallyunfettered disclosure authority. Congresswoman Maloney noted
in herletter that the agency apparently changed its policy without consultingthe House of Representatives committees that have jurisdiction
over thePrivacy Act and the Social Security Administration.
Letter to the Social Security Administration from Congresswoman Maloney(pdf):
http://www.epic.org/foia_notes/maloney_letter_052705.pdf
Documents Obtained by EPIC Under FOIA (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/foia_notes/ssa_foia.pdf
EPIC FOIA Note #4: Just Say "9/11" To Obtain Social SecurityInformation:
http://www.epic.org/foia_notes/note4.html
[2] REAL ID Next Steps Debated at EPIC's National ID Symposium
On June 6, 2005, representatives of many organizations that raisedconcerns about REAL ID and related proposals met in Washington,
DC, todiscuss next steps at EPIC's symposium, "National ID at the Crossroads:
The Future of Privacy in America.” The event included panels about thetechnology, law, impact of, and international issues associated
withidentification.
In May, Congress passed the supplemental military spending bill to whichthe REAL ID Act was attached. REAL ID, a national ID program,
mandatesfederal identification standards and requires that state DMVs collectsensitive personal information. Congress passed REAL
ID without ahearing even though legislators in both parties urged debate, and morethan 600 organizations opposed the bill. Under
the REAL ID Act, stateDMVs will have to verify identification documents and the legal statusof immigrants. States are mandated to
link their databases so that allinformation collected by each DMV can be accessed.
Speakers at the symposium included Bruce Schneier, author of "BeyondFear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World";
BarbaraSimons of the Association for Computing Machinery; Cheye Calvo of theNational Conference of State Legislatures, and Dennis
Bailey of theCoalition for a Secure Driver's License. Mr. Bailey was one of the fewsupporters of the REAL ID Act at the symposium.
He denied that REAL IDcreates a national ID card, and said that he would accept the costs ofimplementing the legislation if it would
mean there would be strongernational security.
Other speakers rejected the idea that the mandates of REAL ID would makethe country more secure. Placing identification verificationresponsibilities
upon DMV workers, as opposed to trained Customs andImmigration agents, would make it easier for false identities to becreated and
more likely that legitimate citizens and residents would berejected as illegitimate. Mr. Schneier stated that the new licenseswould
indeed become national ID cards in practice as licenses are usedfor more than just driving - they're used when people apply for creditcards
or bank loans, write a check, get a library card or enter acourthouse. These national ID cards, containing sensitive personalinformation
and possibly biometric identification, would be used severaltimes a day for non-driving purposes.
EPIC's June 6, 2005, National ID Symposium page:
http://www.epic.org/events/id/
EPIC's National ID Cards and REAL ID page:
http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/
Text of H.R. 418, the Real ID Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:
[3] US Backs Down on Biometric Passports for European Union
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has relaxed its rulesmandating that countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program issuebiometric
passports by October 2005. The current law, enacted in 2002,gives Visa Waiver countries until October to issue hi-tech passportscontaining
biometric information such as fingerprints or iris scansembedded in machine-readable chips.
The new passport standards require digital photographs to match with aperson's unique physical characteristics by October and an embeddedidentification
chip later. The requirements are a drastic step back fromthe initial biometric standards announced in 2002. Only six EU countriesare
expected to issue passports that comply with the initial standardsin time to meet the October deadline. The U.K. does not expect
to issuebiometric passports until the first quarter of 2006. The initialdeadline of October 2004 was pushed back when no country
could meet thenew requirements in time. A separate requirement that passports bemachine-readable will be enforced beginning on June
26.
Each year, an estimated 13 million travelers from 27 Visa WaiverCountries, mostly in Europe, are allowed to visit the U.S. for up
to 90days without obtaining a visa. Citizens in countries that do notparticipate in the visa-waiver program, or do not meet the new
passportrequirements, must obtain visas before entering the U.S.
This turnaround comes just one month after the State Department'sdecision to revise plans to use passports with unencrypted RFID tags.
The switch was in response to criticism from EPIC, other civil libertiesgroups, privacy and security experts, and the travel industry.
Theproposal would have made personal data contained in hi-tech passportsvulnerable to unauthorized access.
EPIC, EFF et. al, Comments on RFID passports (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/rfid_passports-0405.pdf
EPIC's RFID page:
http://epic.org/privacy/rfid/
[4] USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Debates Heat Up
In a surprise move, the House of Representatives voted 238-187 onWednesday to block the Justice Department and the FBI from using
the USAPATRIOT Act to seek library records and bookstore sales slips of terrorsuspects. Lawmakers were concerned about the potential
invasion ofprivacy of innocent library users. The vote passed even after a vetothreat from President Bush.
Also this week, the House Committee on the Judiciary held its eleventhoversight hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act on June 8, with Deputy
AttorneyGeneral James Comey testifying. The questions centered on provisionsconcerning wiretapping, authority to search homes without
priornotification, interception of computer trespasser communications,Internet service providers, and mandatory detention of non-citizensuspected
terrorists.
Several Members expressed concern about the erosion of civil libertiescaused by certain USA PATRIOT Act provisions. Representatives
from bothparties noted that one option is to extend the law's "sunset" provision,which will nullify certain provisions of the law
on December 31, 2005,unless Congress reauthorizes them, rather than permanently enact thesunsetting provisions into law. Another
option proposed is to apply asunset provision to the entire Act, not just the specified sections nowunder review, so that Congress
will scrutinize the law again at a laterdate.
The June 8 hearing continued on June 10. The witnesses included CarlinaTapia-Ruano, First Vice President of the American Immigration
LawyersAssociation; Dr. James J. Zogby, President of the Arab AmericanInstitute; Deborah Pearlstein, Director of the U.S. Law and
SecurityProgram; and Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board of Amnesty InternationalUSA. The witnesses emphasized that the USA PATRIOT Act
should bedesigned to provide security while protecting individual rights. Theycalled for greater oversight and accountability and
less secrecy.
Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner began the hearing by stating thatthe testimony of the witnesses was "far outside the scope"
of thehearing, noting that he believed the testimony did not bear on thesixteen provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act under review. Mr.
Sensenbrenner followed the House rules closely, holding Members andwitnesses to the five-minute time limit. The Chairman abruptly
closedthe hearing and walked out while witnesses continued to testify andamidst protests from committee members.
Webcast of June 8, 2005, House Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing onReauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=177
Webcast of June 10, 2005, House Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing onReauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act (continued from June
8):
http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=180
EPIC's USA PATRIOT Act Sunset page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/sunset.html
[5] Senators, FTC At Odds on Solutions to Curbing Identity Theft
The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing today concerning theproblem of identity theft. All of the senators expressed their beliefthat
action had to be taken to curtail the growing number ofdata-security breaches. Two common themes emerged from the hearing: theneed
to create minimum security standards for a company's collection ofpersonal data and to notify individuals of the exposure of theirpersonal
information.
Sen. Chuck Schumer proposed regulations for data brokers that wouldrequire the implementation of both minimum security standards for
dataand would also allow for FTC authentication of any possible informationbuyers. Noting the recent CitiFinancial loss of data tapes,
he proposedthat any data transported in a physical manner should utilize encryptionin order to minimize exposure. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
said it wasnecessary for civil penalties to accompany any federal notificationstatute in order to ensure compliance.
William Sorrell, the Vermont Attorney General and President of theNational Association of Attorneys General, stated that any action
takenby the federal government regarding notification of consumers shouldserve as a floor and that it not preempt more protective
state laws. Mr.
Sorrell also testified that federal statutes should not preempt anystate efforts to develop "credit freeze" laws. (Credit reports
that are"frozen" or sealed can be made available only when the individual"thaws" her file, and specifies to whom, when, or in what
contexts thefile can be released.)
Members of the Federal Trade Commission testified and called on Congressto enact tougher legislation on data brokers and businesses
entrustedwith sensitive consumer data. FTC commissioners consistently rejected anumber of senators' suggestions, such as a national
registry of databrokers, the creation of an Office of Identity Theft, and an end to theuse of consumers' Social Security numbers
by businesses. CommissionerThomas Leary stated that it was impractical to halt the longtime use ofthe SNN by businesses. FTC commissioners
suggested stronger laws tolimit the legitimate use of the SSN as an identifier.
Since 2001, EPIC has investigated commercial data aggregators such asChoicepoint, which collect personal information on individuals
and sellthe data to third parties. In May, EPIC Executive Director MarcRotenberg testified about identity theft and commercial data
brokersbefore the same Senate committee. EPIC recommended passage of both theNotification of Risk to Personal Data Act, S. 751, and
the ComprehensiveIdentity Theft Prevention Act, S. 768. EPIC also recommended theapplication of the federal Privacy Act to any information
broker thatsells personal information to federal agencies.
Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on June 16, 2005:
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1536
EPIC's Testimony Before the Senate Committee on May 10, 2005 (pdf):
http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/testimony50905.pdf
EPIC's Choicepoint page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint
[6] News in Brief
FOIA Note #6: Election Agency Proposes Secret Voting StandardsDocuments obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act revealthe complete draft standards for voting technology. The standards, whichwere developed by a technical committee for the Election
AssistanceCommission, could determine how votes will be tabulated in futureelections. Other documents obtained by EPIC reveal vendor
attempts toinfluence the development of the standards.
EPIC FOIA Note #6:
http://www.epic.org/foia_notes/note6.html
Documents Obtained by EPIC Under FOIA:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/eac_foia/EPIC Joins Civil Liberties Brief in Newsletter Subscriber Privacy CaseEPIC joined eight civil liberties organizations to submit a
"friend ofthe court" brief in Forensic Advisors, Inc. v. Matrixx Initiatives,Inc., which is currently before the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals.
In this case, Matrixx, a pharmaceutical company, is attempting to forceTimothy Mulligan, a newsletter publisher, to disclose his subscriberlist
so that Matrixx can use it in connection with a lawsuit it filedagainst numerous unidentified people who posted derogatory commentsabout
Matrixx on Internet discussion boards. The brief argues in favorof protecting the subscriber list under a Maryland law that protectsjournalists'
sources. It also argues that the subscriber list isprotected under the First Amendment, since disclosure of the list woulddeter readership
and violate constitutionally established privacyrights. The brief proposes a five-factor test for determining when asubscriber list
should be disclosed, essentially requiring the partydemanding the list to prove that the list is essential to vindicate itslegal
rights, that those rights outweigh the privacy rights of thepeople on the list, and that it is in the public interest for the listto
be disclosed.
Amicus Brief Submitted by EPIC, et. al (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/forensic_amicus.pdf
Report Criticizes State of Open Government Under AshcroftWatching Justice recently released a report concerning open governmentunder
former Attorney General John Ashcroft. The report criticizes theJustice Department's relationship with the media and finds that Mr.
Ashcroft's narrow interpretation of the federal FOIA made it harder toget information from the government. The report states that
the currentadministration views open government "as a nuisance at best." Reportersand advocates are urged to give more attention
to government initiativesand to make more FOIA requests in general.
"Open Government in the Ashcroft Era: What Went Wrong, and How to Makeit Right":
http://www.watchingjustice.org/reports/article.php?docId=663
Survey: Congress Not Meeting Challenge of Data ProtectionA recent survey shows that many D.C. opinion leaders believe Congresshas
failed to keep consumer data safe. The survey by iQ Research andConsulting polled more than 400 "senior level professionals" with
media,government, public policy or technology jobs in the D.C. area. Greaterthan 80% of the those surveyed felt that Congress had
not done enough toprotect Social Security numbers; almost 70% felt that congressionalattempts to protect consumer credit reports
from unauthorized accesswere largely unsuccessful.
Joint Adobe and RSA Security Press Release About Survey:
http://www.rsasecurity.com/press_release.asp?doc_id=5886
EPIC's Choicepoint page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/
Justice Dept. Inspector General Criticizes Terror Screening CenterThe Department of Justice Inspector General released an audit reportthis
week concluding that the United States' new centralized terrordatabase is missing names that should be in it and contains inaccurateinformation
about other people. The Terrorist Screening Center'sdatabase consolidated about a dozen government watch lists, which can beaccessed
by intelligence officials and local, state, and federal lawenforcement agents. "While the TSC had successfully created and deployeda
consolidated watch list database, the TSC has not ensured that theinformation in that database is complete and accurate," the reportdetermined.
Furthermore, the report found that some information aboutpublicly known terrorists was missing, and the system has mistakenlyidentified
people as being in the database. In response to the report,the Terrorist Screening Center released a response stating, among otherthings,
that it will not establish an Office of the Ombudsman to takeresponsibility for redress issues arising from use of the information
inthe database.
Justice Department Inspector General's report:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/igwhnew1.htm
European Parliament and NGOs Oppose Data Retention SchemeThe Council of the European Union will continue with a proposal for anEU-wide
regime of data retention, despite its rejection by the EuropeanParliament. The proposal, introduced jointly by France, the UK, Irelandand
Sweden in April 2004, is intended to ease judicial cooperation incriminal matters relating to the retention of data processed and
storedby ISPs and telcos. But the proposal was rejected by the EuropeanParliament after members considered a report that highlights
problemswith the proposal's scope and legal basis. Last week, a group ofEuropean NGOs, including EDRI, Privacy International and
Statewatch.
wrote to Parliament members urging a rejection of the proposal. Theletter stated that data retention is an invasive tool that interfereswith
the private lives of everyone in Europe, and retaining personaldata on everyone is an illegal practice in violation of Article 8
of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights because it is disproportionate,security gained from retention may be illusory, and the
means throughwhich this policy is being pursued is illegitimate.
Letter from European NGOs to European Parliament:
http://www.edri.org/campaigns/dataretention/openletter
EPIC's Data Retention page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/data_retention.html
Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Measure To Tweak FOIAThe Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a measure that states anyfuture
legislation establishing exemptions to the Freedom of InformationAct be stated clearly within the text of the bill. The measure,sponsored
by Sen. John Cornyn, and Sen. Patrick Leahy is a companionbill to broader legislation to overhaul FOIA. The broader bill has notyet
been considered by the committee. The bill would make major changesto FOIA for the first time in more than a decade by calling for
speedierresponses for requests and for providing incentives for federal agenciesto answer them.
Information about S. 1181:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01181:
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Johnny Long: Google Hacking for Penetration Testers
Johnny Long, Google Hacking for Penetration Testers (Syngress 2005)
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-1931836361-0
Johnny Long's "Google Hacking for the Penetration Testers" is anexcellent resource on the Google Internet search engine. Anyone whouses
Google should read the first two chapters of this book, as itexplains the basic and more advanced search techniques available. Afterchapter
two, things get interesting. Long explains how to use Google toaccess information anonymously, and then dives into discovering sitevulnerabilities
and personal information on the Internet. It concludeswith common-sense approaches to securing your own servers against thesearch
techniques explained earlier in the book.
--
Chris Jay Hoofnagle
EPIC Publications:
"Privacy & Human Rights 2004: An International Survey of Privacy Lawsand Developments" (EPIC 2004). Price: $35.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2004
This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state ofprivacy in more than sixty 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.
"FOIA 2004: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," HarryHammitt, David Sobel and Tiffany Stedman, editors (EPIC 2004).
Price:
$40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004
This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of theFreedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in theSunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 22ndedition fully updates the manual
that lawyers, journalists andresearchers have relied on for more than 25 years. For those wholitigate open government cases (or
need to learn how to litigatethem), this is an essential reference manual.
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit onthe Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook
This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and theprocess of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Thisreference guide provides the official UN documents, regional andissue-oriented perspectives, as well as recommendations and
proposalsfor future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contactsfor individuals and organizations that wish to become
more involved inthe WSIS process.
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, InternationalLaw, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40. 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.
"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
EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summariesof interesting documents obtained from government agencies under
theFreedom of Information Act.
Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:
https://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/control/foia_notes
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
Sixth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: Data Protection - The Convergenceof Privacy & Security. June 20-21, 2005. New York, NY. For
moreinformation: http://www.pli.edu/
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Meeting.
July 11-15, 2005. Luxembourg City, Luxenbourg. For more information:
http://www.icann.org.
3rd International Human.SocietyInternet Conference. July 27-29,
2005. Tokyo, Japan. For more information: http://hsi.itrc.net.
PEP05: UM05 Workshop on Privacy-Enhanced Personalization. July 2005.
Edinburgh, Scotland. For more information:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/PEP05.
Access to Information: Analyzing the State of the Law. RileyInformation Services. September 8, 2005. Ottawa, Ontario. For moreinformation:
http://www.rileyis.com/seminars/
5th Annual Future of Music Policy Summit. Future of Music Coalition.
September 11-13, 2005. Washington DC. For more information:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/summit05/index.cfm.
Public Voice Symposium: "Privacy and Data Protection in Latin America -
Analysis and Perspectives." Launch of the first Spanish version of"Privacy and Human Rights." October 20-21, 2005,
Auditorio AlbertoLleras Camargo de la Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia.
Organizers: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Grupo deEstudios en Internet, Comercio Electrónico, Telecomunicaciones
eInformática (GECTI), Law School of the Universidad de los Andes, Bogota,Colombia, Computer Professional for Social Responsibility-Peru(CPSR-Perú).
For more information:
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/bogota05/default.html.
6th Annual Privacy and Security Workshop. Centre for Innovation Law andPolicy (University of Toronto) and the Center for Applied CryptographicResearch
(University of Waterloo). November 3-4, 2005. University ofToronto. For more information:
http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/conferences/2005/psw/announcement.html
The World Summit on the Information Society. Government of Tunisia.
November 16-18, 2005. Tunis, Tunisia. For more information:
http://www.itu.int/wsis.
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Meeting.
November 30-December 4, 2005. Vancouver, Canada. For moreinformation: target="new">http://www.icann.org.
Subscription Information
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
target="new">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.
.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICAlert/2005/13.html
