WorldLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2005 >> [2005] EPICAlert 22

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Alerts] [Noteup] [Help]

EPIC Alert 12.21 [2005] EPICAlert 22 (20 October 2005)








EPIC ALERT


Volume 12.21 October 20, 2005

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

http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_12.21.html
Table of Contents



[1] Broad Coalition Opposes Joint Marketing, Recruiting Database
[2] Federal Court Blocks Georgia Voter ID Law
[3] EPIC Files "Friend of the Court" Brief in DNA Dragnet Case
[4] FDA Urged to Examine Medical Monitoring Databases
[5] Election Verification Groups Call for Compliance with Voting Laws
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Katherine Albrecht's "Spychips"


[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events


[1] Broad Coalition Opposes Joint Marketing, Recruiting Database

The Electronic Privacy Information Center was joined by more than100 local, state, and national organizations in urging Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld to end the Joint Advertising and Market ResearchStudies recruiting database.

The groups cited the broad exemptions to federal privacy laws that wouldallow the Defense Department to disclose personal information toothers without an individual's consent or knowledge. The proposed usesinclude disclosures to law enforcement, state and local tax authorities,employment queries from other agencies, and foreign authorities.

The database first drew public attention earlier this year when the DODplaced a request for comments on the project in the Federal Register.
Following the submission of comments on the system of records by privacygroups, the DOD admitted in a media roundtable that it had in factalready created the system of records. Several privacy advocacy groupsexpressed dissatisfaction with the DOD for providing such late notice onthe existence of the project.

The DOD acknowledged that the database would include the names, dates ofbirth, genders, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, SocialSecurity Numbers, ethnicities, high schools, education levels, colleges,and intended fields of study for more than 30 million Americans who are16-25 years old. This system of records would even go so far as torecord parents' attitudes about military recruitment.

The campaign began by privacy advocacy organizations quickly spread toinclude civil liberties, consumer rights, community and peace groups.
Their efforts resulted in a broad coalition of groups who signed theletter, which included the American Civil Liberties Union, the AmericanFriends Service Committee, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, CommonCause, LeaveMyChildAlone.org, the Liberty Coalition, Rock the Vote, andthe Rutherford Institute.

Coalition Letter Opposing Defense Dept. Database:
http://www.privacycoalition.org/nododdatabase/letter.html

Background on DOD Recruiting Database:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/student/doddatabase.html

Graphic (No attribution required):
http://www.epic.org/graphics/iwantyou_sm.jpg




[2] Federal Court Blocks Georgia Voter ID Law

A federal court in Rome, Georgia prevented enforcement of a state lawthat would have required voters to present a government-issued photo IDcard in order to vote. Judge Harold Murphy of the U.S. District Courtof the Northern District of Georgia held on October 18 that requiringall voters to obtain an ID amounted to an unconstitutional polltax.

Poll taxes, fees collected from voters ostensibly designed to offsetvoting administration costs, were long used in the South in order toprevent African-Americans and other groups from participating inelections. Poll taxes are prohibited by the 24th Amendment to theConstitution, passed in 1964.

The Georgia law would have required voters to present a driver's licenseor other government photo ID in order to vote. The plaintiffs in thiscase argued that the cost of obtaining such an ID ($20-35) wasprohibitive to many poor voters, especially considering additional timeand money lost in the process of obtaining the cards. Georgia has only58 Department of Driver Services offices to issue ID cards for its 159counties, denying access to many rural and urban residents. No suchoffices, for instance, exist within the city limits of Atlanta.
Potential voters, many without cars or public transportation, would haveto travel dozens of miles to reach an office, where wait times werelengthy. The plaintiffs, several voting and minorities rights groups,alleged that these restrictions amounted to a poll tax that woulddisadvantage minorities, the poor, and the elderly.

Proponents argued that the law was necessary to prevent voting fraud,and that exceptions allowed indigent voters to sign an affidavitdeclaring that they could not afford the ID fee. The district courtopinion, however, disregarded these arguments. the court noted that thestate had not received a single complaint of voter fraud at the polls inat least nine years. The court also noted that the state failed toinform voters of the various provisions of the fee exception, and thatthis failure to inform would result in many potential voters notcompleting the necessary affidavit.

The court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of thelaw, meaning that the law cannot be enforced during upcoming municipalelections in November. Proponents of the law said they were willing toappeal the decision to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Earlier in the year, EPIC opposed the Georgia law before the JusticeDepartment's Voting Rights Section, which must approve changes to votinglaws in several states. EPIC argued that the ID requirement amounted toa poll tax, and adversely affected voters' privacy rights.

Text of the district court's opinion (pdf):
http://www.acluga.org/briefs/voterID/condensed.pdf

EPIC's Comments to the Department of Justice about the Georgia Voter IDPlan (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/comments_ga_hb244.pdf

EPIC's Voting Privacy page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/




[3] EPIC Files "Friend of the Court" Brief in DNA Dragnet Case

EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in a federal caseaddressing whether the police may coerce a person to provide a DNAsample. The brief was submitted just as Congress began to considercontroversial legislation that would expand the scope of DNA profiles inthe FBI's national DNA database.

The case concerns a 2002 DNA dragnet initiated by police in Baton Rouge,Louisiana during a serial rape-murder investigation. Police targeted menin southern Louisiana, asking them to provide DNA samples to determinewhether one of them might be the rapist-murderer. By 2003, police hadtaken samples from more than 1,200 men in what was the largest DNAdragnet in U.S. history at the time. At least 15 men, including ShannonKohler, declined to let police take a DNA sample. The Baton Rouge PoliceDepartment obtained a warrant to force Mr. Kohler to submit his DNAsample for the investigation. Mr. Kohler was also identified by thepolice and news media as a suspect in the highly publicizedinvestigation. The police later cleared Mr. Kohler as a suspect.

Mr. Kohler filed suit, alleging that the warrant used to obtain his DNAwas not supported by probable cause. He has asked for his DNA profile tobe removed from any state or federal database and is seeking damages forthe invasion of his privacy in violation of constitutional guaranteesagainst unreasonable search and seizure. In February 2005, the federaldistrict court dismissed Mr. Kohler's claim, finding that police hadprobable cause based on two anonymous tips and the fact that Mr. Kohlermet "certain elements of an FBI profile," which the court characterizedas "so broad and vague that it cast a net of suspicion over thousands ofcitizens."

EPIC's brief before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals surveys more than20 DNA dragnets conducted in the United States over the past 15 years.
The brief shows that the investigative technique has failed repeatedlyto identify the intended targets of investigations, but has compromisedthe privacy rights of thousands of innocent people. The brief urgesthat clear guidelines be established before the police engage in thisinvestigative practice.

EPIC's amicus brief in Kohler v. Englade (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/kohler/amicus.pdf

More information about the case:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/kohler

DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, S. 1197 Title X:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.1197:




[4] FDA Urged to Examine Medical Monitoring Databases

The Food and Drug Administration is intensifying scrutiny ofdirect-to-consumer marketing of medical products. Most of the focus ison television commercials and mass-circulation print advertising ofdrugs and other regulated medical products. This week, EPIC warned theagency that heightened attention to these mass-media areas may result indrug companies increasing their reliance on databases of personalinformation to target individuals for medical products.

EPIC urged the FDA to consider three risks associated with targeted drugmarketing. First, data brokers, companies that amass personalinformation and sell it to marketers and others, can enable targeting ofdirect-to-consumer advertising to vulnerable populations. For instance,data brokers have sold "sucker" lists
--
databases of individuals labeledas "impulsive," those who have fallen for scams, or those otherwiselacking the capacity to evaluate a marketing representation. InSeptember, a major direct marketing publication listed a database of"impulsive" consumers who purchased a pendant "advertised as having afragment of the Eye of Ra inside it," with the belief that the pendantwill "change their life, awaken their inner consciousness and bring themwealth."

Walter Karl, a list broker that was probed by the Iowa Attorney General,market a lists of consumers described as: "impulsive buyers: primarilymature" and "highly impulsive consumers: sure to respond to all of yourlow-end offers." There is a risk that sucker databases will be usedmore frequently if the FDA does not scrutinize marketing practices. Thisrisk is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike mass-circulation print andbroadcast advertising, targeted solicitations are harder for publichealth authorities to monitor.

Second, medical information is often gathered in a deceptive fashion.
Consumers are often presented with product warranty or registrationcards that solicit medical information, with the false implication thatcompleting the card is necessary to enjoy protection for a product.

Finally, this medical information is being gathered outside theprotections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act'sPrivacy Regulations. Hippo Direct, a company that markets over 100lists categorized by ailment, gathers medical information in contextswhere privacy law doesn't apply, including: "telephone and mail orderpurchase information, rebate coupons, subscription order forms, warrantycard registrations, 800# respondents, sweepstakes entry forms, tradeshow/conference attendee rosters, and consumer surveys &
questionnaires." Individuals who give their medical ailment informationto marketers in these contexts have no ability to "opt-out" of the datacollection, to access their data or correct it, or order that the databe deleted.

The FDA's public forum on these issues is scheduled for November 1st and2nd in Washington, DC. Any member of the public may provide writtencomment on these issues until February 28, 2006 through the FDA'swebsite.

EPIC Comments on Medical Marketing Databases:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical/dtcltr10.11.05.html

FDA Information on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac/dtc2005/default.htm




[5] Election Verification Groups Call for Compliance with Voting Laws

In a letter dated October 3, EPIC and eight election verification groupsurge that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission fully comply with theHelp America Vote Act (HAVA). The groups object to the commission'sdecision to delay a mandate that requires a new testing laboratoryaccreditation process for voting systems.

The Commission announced its intention to delay a HAVA-mandated newtesting laboratory accreditation process for voting systems used inpublic elections until 2007. HAVA states that the new process should bein place within six months after new voting system standards arepromulgated. The deadline for new standards is January 1, 2006. Theorganizations that signed the letter said that HAVA's goal of creatingmore reliable, secure, accessible, transparent, accurate, and auditablepublic elections would be negatively effected by the Commission'sdecision.

The letter asked that the agency follow HAVA's requirements, includingthe consultation of the National Institute of Standards and Technologyin creating a new list of labs capable of certifying voting systems usedin public elections. The Institute's role is to narrow the list ofqualified laboratories based on federal laboratory certificationstandards. The Commission would select from that list or provide awritten explanation of why they selected other laboratories to fill thisrole.

The Commission is in the final stages of developing voting systemguidelines for the states.

EPIC's Letter (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/eac_house100305.pdf

EAC Press Announcement on Laboratory Testing Authorities:
http://www.eac.gov/VSCP_082305.htm




[6] News in Brief

EU Council of Ministers Requires Telecoms to Keep Traffic DataThe European Council of Ministers agreed recently to requiretelecommunications companies to keep records of their traffic data for aminimum of 12 months. Internet Service Providers would be required toretain emails and browsing logs for six months.

The decision faces stiff opposition in Europe from EU bodies, ITindustry groups, and public interest organizations. The EuropeanParliament has also overwhelmingly voted against the data retentionproposal twice in the last few months. Without its approval, the measurewill not have the weight to convince all EU member states to implementthe requirements within their national laws. The European DataProtection Supervisor, which oversees compliance with data protectionrules, opposed the measure, casting doubt on whether the measurecomplies with the two EU Data Protection Directives and the EuropeanConvention of Human Rights. Telecommunications and IT industries have
objected to the measure because of its high costs and impracticalities.
Public interest groups, including Privacy International and EuropeanDigital Rights, argue that the measure is invasive, illegal,illegitimate, and provide only an illusion of security.

A coalition of groups has issued a Joint Declaration on Data Retentionin opposition to the measure. The Declaration echoes the concernsexpressed by the Parliament, the Data Protection Supervisor, andindustry, and also notes that legal rules on the handling ofcommunications data must be subject to prior parliamentarian consent.

Joint Declaration on Data Retention:
http://www.jointdeclaration.com/index.htm

Information Technology Association of America, Letter to the EuropeanCommission (pdf):
http://www.itaa.org/eweb/upload/FINAL_DataRetentionComments_09062005.pdf

European Digital Rights/Privacy International, Data Retention Is NoSolution:
http://www.stopdataretention.com/

EPIC's data retention Web page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/data_retention.html

Censorship Software: Made in the USAThe southeast Asian country of Myanmar, previously known as Burma,intensely monitors and heavily filters the Internet using softwareobtained from U.S. antivirus and firewall vendor Fortinet, according toa report released last week from the OpenNet Initiative. The countryblocks any Web sites that contain any writings that criticize thegovernment. Fortinet denies the sale; if the company had directly soldthe software to Myanmar, it would have violated a U.S. embargo onbusiness with the country.

OpenNet Initiative Report: Internet Filtering in Burma in 2005 (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/burma.html

Fortinet site:
http://www.fortinet.com/

Federal Court Preempts Landmark California Financial Privacy LawA federal district court has held that Fair Credit Reporting Actsupercedes, or "preempts," portions of California's landmark financialprivacy law. The financial services industry challenged the law, knownas SB 1, that allowed Californians to curtail the sale of personalinformation among a company's affiliates
--
companies with the sameownership or control. Despite the ruling, provisions of California lawthat require opt-in consent before data can be sold to third parties(non-affiliates) are still valid.

EPIC ABA v. Lockyer Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/preemption/abavlockyer.html

New Consumer Reporting Agency EmergesA company called Innovis Data Solutions announced its plans to beginselling personal information it has collected on millions ofindividuals. By marketing and selling credit reports on consumers,Innovis joins the ranks of the three largest credit reporting agencies:
Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. In contrast to these other creditreporting agencies, however, Innovis's Web site provides littleinformation on its current activities. The company also has a historyof secrecy. In the past, Innovis distanced itself from consumers bystating that consumers are not adversely affected by reports the companysells on them. Innovis traditionally sold credit reports not tolenders, but to direct marketers of credit, loans, and other productsand services.

Innovis site:
http://www.innovis.com

EPIC's Credit Report page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra/

Consumer Coalition for Health Privacy Supports State Privacy LawsOn October 7, the Health Privacy Project and the Consumer Coalition forHealth Privacy pressed the National Institutes of Health's Commission onSystemic Interoperability not to override state privacy laws. TheCommission, which is working to create health care informationtechnology standards, is considering a recommendation to override stateprivacy laws that are stronger than the federal Health InformationPortability and Accountability Act. A letter from the coalition notedthat such a proposal was unnecessary and would remove essentialsafeguards for patients.

Letter from the Coalition (Microsoft Word)
http://www.healthprivacy.org/usr_doc/LettertoCommission.doc

The Health Privacy Project:
http://www.healthprivacy.org

The Commission on Systemic Interoperability:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/csi/csi_home.html

Italian Antiterror Law Hurts Businesses Selling Internet, Phone and FaxAccessAn antiterrorism law passed in Italy this summer is taking a toll onbusinesses that offer communications services like Internet, phone, andfax to the public. Under the new law, such businesses must apply for anew license to provide public communications services. They are alsorequired to purchase software to log the websites users visit, a list ofwhich must regularly be turned over to police, and must photocopy thepassports of all customers who use a public communications service. Onecybercafe owner estimated that the law accounts for a 10 percent drop inhis business.

In addition to expanding communications surveillance, Italy'santiterrorism law makes it easier for police to detain individuals,requires that lists of mobile phone users be created to help policeinvestigate terrorist crimes, and provides fines and jail time foranyone who purposely covers his or her face in public.

Sofia Celeste, What to Check Your E-Mail in Italy? Bring Your Passport,Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 4, 2005:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1004/p07s01-woeu.html

Privacy and Human Rights 2004, Responding to Terrorism:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/phr_terrorism.html

Privacy and Human Rights 2004, Italian Republic:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd
[347]=x-347-83522

Accidents Increase at DC Intersections with CamerasA recent report indicated that accidents actually increased atWashington DC intersections that had red-light cameras installed. Thecameras, which automatically photograph cars running red lights, areoften promoted as reducing dangerous accidents. However, the reportfound that accidents more than doubled at camera-covered intersections,from 365 in 1998 to 755 in 2004. Accidents causing injuries andfatalities at camera-equipped locations also rose 81 percent during thisperiod. Stoplights without cameras suffered a 64 percent increase inaccidents and a 54 percent increase in injury and fatal crashes. Thedata contradicts conventional wisdom among camera proponents, which wasthat the cameras decrease major accidents even if minor accidents mayrise. Red light cameras are used in at least 19 states and the Districtof Columbia.

Washington Post Study:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/red-light_study.html

Observing Surveillance:
http://www.observingsurveillance.org/

EPIC, ACLU-NC, and EFF Comment on Municipal Network PrivacyThe San Francisco, CA, government is in the process of weighing plans tobridge the digital divide by blanketing the city with wireless Internetaccess. Twenty-four companies have expressed interest in providingservice to the city, but in their submissions, privacy issues were notfully addressed.

EPIC's West Coast Office partnered with the ACLU of Northern Californiaand the Electronic Frontier Foundation to urge the city to respectInternet users' privacy in developing the system. In a joint letter,the groups urge San Francisco to protect users' privacy by not trackingthem with unique identifiers from session to session, by not sellingdata collected in administering the service, and by resisting subpoenasand other legal requests for users' data. The groups also urged thecity to minimize collection of personal information, and to keep serverlogs only as long as operationally necessary.

Joint Letter on San Francisco Municipal Wireless:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/sfws10.19.05.html




[7] EPIC Bookstore: Katherine Albrecht's "Spychips"


Katherine Albrecht, "Spychips: How major corporations and government plan totrack your every move with RFID"

http://www.powells.com/partner/24075/biblio/61-1595550208-0

The privacy movement has been waiting for the book that transforms theworld as did Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," Michael Harrington's "TheOther America," and Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed." It's not yetclear that Spychips will be that book, but the case can be made thatSpychips is one of the best privacy books in many years.

There are few technologies transforming the world as rapidly as RFID.
The graph for deployment looks something like the right half of theletter "U." Two years ago hardly anyone mentioned RFID. Today Walmartand the Department of Defense require major suppliers to include the"talking ID tag" in all their products. Talk about liftoff.

So, there is a real issue and there are real policy questions. Sure, itis fine to chip your dog, but what about your daughter or your weirdAunt Sally? And if the chips aren't actually placed under the skin, asone Florida company is eager to do, what if the chip is embedded in yourdaughter's student ID card or Aunt Sally's prescription bottles? Andwhat advice do we give to those visiting the United States who may soonbe required to carry an RFID-enabled immigration document? Bring tinfoil?

There is much here for Orwellian paranoia. But what makes Spychips sucha compelling book is that Albrecht and McIntyre stay focused on what isactually happening today. They are also funny, clever, engaging, andinformative. Much of the best material comes from the other side. If youreally want to be creeped out, take a look at the patent applicationsfor some of the RFID services on the horizon or attend the trade shows,listen to the speakers, and read the product announcements. Albrecht andMcIntyre have done all this. Their reporting from behind enemy lines isfirst-rateA good advocacy book also needs good recommendations. The authors coverthese bases well, providing advice for local protests and nationalcampaigns. Much credit also goes to their organization CASPIAN forseveral of the successful organizing efforts.

The privacy movement needs a book. I nominate Spychips.

- Marc Rotenberg



EPIC Publications:

"Privacy & Human Rights 2004: An International Survey of Privacy Lawsand Developments" (EPIC 2004). Price: $50.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2004

The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's DeskReference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students,attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacylaw in the United States and around the world. It includes the fulltexts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair CreditReporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as wellas an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials includethe APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and theCAN-SPAM Act.



"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 the Freedomof Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act,and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 22nd edition fully updatesthe manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on formore than 25 years. For those who litigate open government cases (orneed to learn how to litigate them), this is an essential referencemanual.



"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, and recommendations and proposals forfuture action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts forindividuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in theWSIS process.



"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law,and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price:
$40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/

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, as wellas 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 consumers andthe 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 several governmentsare gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats of encryption tolaw 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 Bookshttp://www.powells.com/features/epic/epic.html



EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries ofinteresting 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

Public Voice Symposium: "Privacy and Data Protection in Latin America -
Analysis and Perspectives." Launch of the English version of "Privacyand Human Rights 2005." October 20-21, 2005, Auditorio Alberto LlerasCamargo de la Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia. Organizers:
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Grupo de Estudios enInternet, Comercio Electrónico, Telecomunicaciones e Informática(GECTI), Law School of the Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia,Computer Professional for Social Responsibility-Peru (CPSR-Perú). Formore information:
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/bogota05/default.html

Privacy Law in the New Millennium: A Tribute to Richard C. Turkington.
Villanova University School of Law. October 29, 2005. Villanova, PA. Formore information:
http://www.law.vill.edu/scholarlyresources/symposiaandcle/

Cryptographic Hash Workshop. National Institute of Standards andTechnology, Computer Security Division. October 31-November 1, 2005.
Gaithersburg, MD. For more information:
http://www.csrc.nist.gov/pki/HashWorkshop/index.html

First International Conference on Digital Rights Management: Technology,Issues, Challenges, and Systems. Telecommunications and InformationTechnology Research Institute (University of Wollongong), InternationalAssociation for Cryptologic Resaerch, IEEE Task force on InformationAssurance. October 31-November 2, 2005. Sydney, Australia. For moreinformation:
http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/DRMTICS2005/

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

Contours of Privacy: Normative, Psychological, and Social Perspectives.
Carleton University. November 5-6, 2005. ottowa, Canada. For moreinformation:
http://www.carleton.ca/cove/contours/

12th ACM Conference on Computer and Commnuications Security. Associationfor Computing Machinery: Special Interest Group on Security, Audit, andControl. November 7-11, 2005. Alexandria, VA. For more Information:
http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigsac/ccs/CCS2005/

Regulating Identity Theft and Data Breaches. American Bar AssociationSection of Administrative Law and Practice. November 17, 2005.
Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.abanet.org/adminlaw/conference/2005/home.html

The Federal Bank Regulator's Approach to Data Security. American BarAssociation Section of Administrative Law and Practice. November 17,
2005. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.abanet.org/adminlaw/conference/2005/home.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 more information:
http://www.icann.org

Fifth International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE Computer Society.
November 27-30, 2005. Houston, TX. For more information:
http://www.cacs.louisiana.edu/~icdm05/

First International Conference on Availability, Reliability andSecurity. Vienna University of Technology. April 20-22, 2006. Vienna,Austria. For more inofrmation: http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ares2006/


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 (link toother 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 "subscriptioninformation."


About EPIC

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest researchcenter in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus publicattention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, theDigital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy,and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes theEPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conductspolicy research. For more information, see http://www.epic.org or writeEPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).

If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy InformationCenter, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checksshould be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at:

http://www.epic.org/donate

Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act andFirst Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the rightof privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption andexpanding wiretapping powers.

Thank you for your support.



.


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICAlert/2005/22.html