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

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2005 >> [2005] EPICAlert 24

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

EPIC Alert 12.23 [2005] EPICAlert 24 (17 November 2005)








EPIC ALERT


Volume 12.23 November 17, 2005

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

http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_12.23.html SPECIAL PATRIOT ACT ISSUE
Table of Contents
[*] SPECIAL PATRIOT ACT ISSUE
[1] Court Orders FBI to Release PATRIOT Documents to EPIC
[2] National Security Letters Snoop in Secret
[3] Lawyers Urge PATRIOT Act Oversight
[4] Reactions to EPIC's FBI Freedom of Information Revelations
[5] FBI Seeks Internet Wiretap Authority; EPIC Comments
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: "Information Privacy Law"


[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
[*] SPECIAL PATRIOT ACT ISSUE

URGENTThe PATRIOT Act, passed in a frenzy of activity following September 11,dramatically expended the government's domestic spying powers. The Actestablished new search authorities that lacked judicial oversight, andthe personal information of millions of American citizens was gatheredinto government databases. According to the Washington Post, more than30,000 national security letters were issued in a single year. Documentsobtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act reveal clearabuses of PATRIOT Act authority.

A debate about the future of the Patriot Act now rages in Washington.
Lawmakers must decide whether to renew controversial provisions,such as the secretive library search authority, that would otherwiseexpire. Regrettably, House and Senate conferees have agreed toaccept a Patriot Act renewal that lacks meaningful safeguards.

Civil liberties organizations have urged support for the followingstatement:

November 17, 2005 Dear Members of Congress:

We are writing to urge you to vote against adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 3199, the Patriot Act reauthorization bill. The bill fails to correct the flaws in the Patriot Act that threaten the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.

The bill’s changes to section 215 of the Patriot Act ­ the so-called library provision ­ provide no meaningful new protection. The government retains the power to engage in essentially unlimited fishing expeditions for records of innocent persons. The bill also does nothing to restrain the government’s massive use of national security letters. In fact, the changes on national security letters affirmatively harm civil liberties by imposing unconstitutional criminal penalties for disclosure of receipt of a national security letter.

We agree with Senators Craig, Durbin, Feingold, Murkowski, Salazar and Sununu ­three Republicans and three Democrats ­ that the Patriot Act reauthorization bill should embody the Senate’s approach in requiring a connection between the records sought and a foreign terrorist or spy. Anything less unacceptably compromises the liberties and privacy of the American people.

Reply to tmargossiandcaclu.org before Friday, November 18at 1 pm.

This issue of the EPIC Alert details several of the ongoing problemswith the Patriot Act.




[1] Court Orders FBI to Release PATRIOT Documents to EPIC

On November 16, a federal judge ordered the FBI to publicly release oraccount for thousands of pages of information about the government's useof USA PATRIOT Act powers. The order came as Congress considers whetherto renew provisions of the PATRIOT Act that would otherwise expire.

In a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March, EPIC asked theBureau for information about how it has used investigative authoritygranted by these expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Theseprovisions, many of which have been among the most controversial partsof the law, are scheduled to lapse next month unless Congress takesfurther action.

Noting that Congress would soon hold hearings on whether to renew thesunsetting provisions, EPIC asked the FBI to release the informationquickly. When the Bureau failed to act, EPIC filed a lawsuit in Aprilto force the agency to make the information public. The Bureau releaseda small number of pages just last month, after Congress had concludedits hearings and already drafted legislation to renew the sunsettingprovisions. The few documents that were disclosed included reports ofintelligence misconduct from the FBI to an intelligence oversight board,which attracted widespread media attention (see EPIC Alert 12.22).

In a court hearing last week, Judge Gladys Kessler expressed frustrationthat the FBI failed to release the information while it could stillinform the congressional debate on the PATRIOT Act. Congress is expectedto vote on a finalized version of the PATRIOT renewal bill within days.
According to Judge Kessler, "the record shows that [the FBI's] effortshave been unnecessarily slow and inefficient."

Judge Kessler's Order (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/kessler_order.pdf

EPIC's Freedom of Information Act documents on the USA PATRIOT Act:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia

EPIC's USA PATRIOT Act sunset page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/sunset.html




[2] National Security Letters Snoop in Secret

Critics of the PATRIOT Act frequently focus not only on the expansion ofsurveillance powers the Act grants to the federal government, but alsoon the widespread secrecy that the Act grants to law enforcementinvestigations. One particularly powerful tool is the "nationalsecurity letter," which prevents its recipients from reporting that theyhave been asked for information, or indeed that they have received theletter itself.

The PATRIOT Act's national security letter provision allows thegovernment to obtain information about anyone, so long as the recordsare "sought for" or are "relevant to" an investigation regardinginternational terrorism or clandestine intelligence. This greatlyexpands the use of national security letters. The previous standardrequired the FBI to provide "specific and articulable" reasons itbelieved that the information was about an "agent of a foreign power."

According to a recent Washington Post story, over 30,000 nationalsecurity letters are issued each year, over a hundred times as many aswere issued before the PATRIOT Act's passage. This stands in starkcontrast to a warning given in an internal memo uncovered by EPIC andother civil liberties groups. The memo, dated November 28, 2001, statesthat the letters "must be used judiciously" and that the FBI must"accomplish its investigations through the 'least intrusive' means."

A major problem with national security letters is the secrecysurrounding their use. Recipients of the letters are prohibited fromspeaking about the government's request for information, and informationabout how often the letters are used is not revealed to the public.
Among the documents uncovered by an EPIC Freedom of Information Actrequest is an apparent list of national security letters from 2003. Thecontents of the list have been blacked out by the FBI, with theexception of the words "Grand Total" at the bottom of the column. Thenumber following these words has also been blacked out.

Library and civil liberties associations have argued that the statuteauthorizing national security letters is unconstitutional. In Doe v.
Gonzalez, a federal court in Connecticut held that a national securityletter could not prevent a library from revealing itself as a recipientof the letter. The case is on track for an expedited appeal before theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals.

EPIC's PATRIOT Act FOIA page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/

FBI Memo dated November 28, 2001 (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/fbi_nsl_memo.pdf

Redacted list of national security letters (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/nsl-list.pdf

Washington Post story:

http://www.epic.org/redirect/washpo_nsl.html




[3] American Bar Association Calls for PATRIOT Act Oversight

The American Bar Association is "concerned that there is inadequateCongressional oversight of government investigations undertaken pursuantto the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to ensure that suchinvestigations do not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments tothe Constitution," according to a November 9 letter from the Presidentof the ABA to Members of Congress considering renewal of the PATRIOT Act.

The ABA urged Congress to "requir[e] that the annual report by theAttorney General, currently required by FISA, include specificstatistical information on the use of FISA physical search authority andFISA pen/register trap and trace authority." Current statistics show anincreasing use of surveillance techniques.

The latest FISA Annual Report revealed that electronic surveillance wasat an all-time high in 2004. There were 1,758 applications for secretsurveillance warrants in 2004, and none of the applications were denied.
In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted thanfederal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards.

A recent report on federal wiretap warrants revealed that state andfederal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions in 2004, an increase of 19percent over 2003 and more than in any previous year. Federal officialsmade 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over 2003.

The letter from the American Bar Association (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/aba_letter1105.pdf

The latest FISA Annual Report (pdf):

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2004rept.pdf

U.S. courts' 2004 Wiretap Report:

http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap04/contents.html

The American Bar Association's Resolution on FISA:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/aba_res_021003.html

EPIC's FISA page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/




[4] Reactions to EPIC's FBI Freedom of Information Revelations

From "Checking FBI Spying," Washington Post editorial:
November 10, 2005The surveillance reports, generated by the FBI general counsel's officeand released under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, are heavilyredacted. Still, they show that there have been at least 13 casesbetween 2002 and 2004 of violations serious enough that the FBI itselfdetermined they must be reported to an executive branch agency calledthe Intelligence Oversight Board. Moreover, the case numbers on thereleased documents suggest that there were hundreds of potentialviolations examined by the bureau during that period. This is cause forconcern. Errors happen in any complex bureaucracy, and it isn't clearthat these are serious ones in civil liberties terms rather than meretechnical mistakes. Moreover, in some sense, the existence of thesedocuments is encouraging. They are the results of the bureau's internalreporting of errors, and the general counsel's office appears to begiving conscientious review to those cases that come its way -- at leastin cases the bureau chose to release. In other words, this limited cacheof documents could reflect dangerous carelessness in the field or a goodsystem for catching mistakes -- or even both at the same time.

"Patriot Act Abuses: More than Meets the Eye"
November 16, 2005We appreciate the Nov. 10 editorial "Checking FBI Spying" about thedramatic increase in "national security letters." It raised timelyquestions about the use of authority granted by the USA Patriot Act.
However, the documents that the Electronic Privacy Information Center(EPIC) received from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Actregarding domestic intelligence investigations cannot be dismissed as"technical mistakes" or the result of a "complex bureaucracy."

When the FBI determines that domestic intelligence investigations wereconducted contrary to law and in violation of the individual rights ofU.S. citizens, the law requires that these cases be reported to theIntelligence Oversight Board. Administrative errors do not requirereporting to the board.

EPIC obtained documentation of a dozen such referrals. Subsequentreporting uncovered 113 violations since last year. And the numberingsystem associated with these reports suggests that several hundred suchcases may have occurred since passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.

The attorney general and the director of the FBI assured Congress duringhearings on the Patriot Act's renewal that they knew of no verifiedcases of civil liberties abuses. We believe that the administration hasnot been forthcoming about the extent of the problems with the PatriotAct. Better methods of oversight and reporting are clearly needed.

MARC ROTENBERG Executive Director MARCIA HOFMANN Staff Counsel Electronic Privacy Information CenterWashington Post editorial on FBI Spying:

http://www.epic.org/redirect/washpo_editorial.html

EPIC's letter to the editor on PATRIOT Act abuses:

http://www.epic.org/redirect/washpo_epic_letter.html




[5] FBI Seeks Internet Wiretap Authority; EPIC Comments

Even as Congress considers whether to renew the PATRIOT Act, the FBI ispressing the FCC to expand its wiretap authority. The CommunicationsAssistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 requires communicationsproviders to design their systems so that law enforcement agencies canlisten in on communications easily. Expanding the scope of this law toVoIP could mean that the same security backdoors could be required ofany number of Internet-connected devices and computer programs.

The Act was created when the FBI and other law enforcement agenciesbecame worried that advances in communications technology made itdifficult for them to conduct electronic surveillance. They thereforepushed for a law that would require telecommunications carriers to makesystems that could be tapped easily. The law, passed in 1994, alsospecified that these security backdoor requirements would apply only totelecommunications carriers, who provide telephone services, and not to"information services," like Internet service providers.

Ten years later, however, the Department of Justice petitioned the FCCto bring broadband services and VoIP under the scope of the Act. Thisled to a rulemaking, which held that broadband Internet providers werecovered. The rule also said that VoIP services that connected to thephone network should also be required to have the security backdoorsbuilt in. EPIC, in a coalition with other civil liberties groups andbusinesses, filed a court challenge to that rulemaking. That challengeis still pending.

The current rulemaking by the FCC contemplates extending the Act's scopefurther, including VoIP services that do not connect with the telephonenetwork. This expansion could mean that services as diverse as instantmessaging programs, computer-to-computer VoIP applications, andvideogame chat functions would have to be designed with easy governmentsurveillance in mind.

EPIC has filed comments in opposition to this proposed expansion of theAct's scope, stating that the FCC has acted contrary to the language ofthe statute, and that its expansion of the law will lead to increasedprivacy and security vulnerabilities.

FCC's broadband Order, with proposal on further expansion (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/calea/fcc_05_153a1.pdf

EPIC's Comments on FCC's proposed rulemaking (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/calea/cmts_voip111505.pdf

EPIC's Wiretap page:

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




[6] News in Brief

White House Orders Increased Information SharingOn October 25, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, whichexpands the number of entities with which federal agencies must shareinformation. The order supersedes and revokes an earlier order, whichrequired agencies to share information with "appropriate authorities ofStates and local governments." The new order expands this list toinclude tribal governments, as well as "appropriate private sectorentities." The information to be shared is broadly defined, andincludes any information that could somehow be related to terroristindividuals or groups, or individuals or groups believed to beassociated with terrorist individuals or groups.

Executive Order 13388:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13388.htm

EPIC Files "Friend of the Court" Brief in Workplace Surveillance CaseEPIC has filed an amicus brief in Nelson v. Salem State College, a casein which the highest court in Massachusetts is considering whether astate college violated an employee's privacy by conduct ongoing secretvideo surveillance in her workspace. EPIC's brief argues that the lawmust recognize that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy fromcamera surveillance, or society has virtually no reasonable expectationof privacy outside the home. EPIC also argues that the law must requirecovert video surveillance to be conducted only by well-trained andcarefully supervised officials to ensure the investigative technique isnot abused.

EPIC Amicus Brief in Nelson v. Salem State College (pdf):

http://www.epic.org/privacy/nelson/epic_nelson_amicus.pdf

EPIC's Nelson v. Salem State College Page:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/nelson/default.html

Medical Records Privacy Important to Americans, Survey FindsSixty-seven percent of adults are concerned about the privacy of theirpersonal medical records, according to a poll by the CaliforniaHealthCare Foundation and the Health Privacy Project. Also, 52 percentfear that their health insurance information might be used by employersto limit job opportunities. Congress is considering a proposal to builda national Health Information Network, but it does not yet includeadequate privacy safeguards. EPIC and Patient Privacy Rights are callingfor strong medical privacy protections in an online petition.

National Consumer Health Privacy Survey 2005 by the CaliforniaHealthCare Foundation and the Health Privacy Project:

http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=115694

Medical Privacy Petition:

http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/petition

EPIC's Medical Privacy page:

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

TransUnion, ChoicePoint Report Data BreachesTransUnion LLC, one of the three major credit reporting agenciesrecently reported that unauthorized persons had accessed the data,including Social Security numbers, of over 3,000 consumers. The data,stored on a computer stolen from a California office, is stored behind apassword prompt. TransUnion says this means that the information isunlikely to be abused. California law currently requires that all databreaches be reported, while many pending federal bills would remove anynotification requirement if the data is encrypted or stored behind apassword.

ChoicePoint, the data brokerage firm that disclosed last year that ithad sold consumer data to identity thieves, revealed recently that17,000 more consumers were affected by its data breach. This brings thetotal number of consumers affected by this single breach to 162,000. Atleast 750 cases of identity theft have been reported as a result of thebreach. This may not be the total harm, however: it is often difficultfor identity theft victims to pinpoint the source of a data breach, andChoicePoint has said that further announcements of breaches werepossible.

EPIC's ChoicePoint page:

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

Groups Outline Effective ID Theft Law
EPIC and 12 privacy and consumer groups set out a framework for effective legislation to address the growing problem of identity theft.
Identity theft now costs the economy over $50 billion annually, and consumers foot much of the bill. The groups recommend strong notification requirements, better consumer control over personal information, limits on the use of the SSN, regulation of commercial data brokers, and protection for good state privacy initiatives.

Coalition Letter on Effective Identity Theft Prevention:

http://epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/datamarker11.09.05.html

EPIC's Choicepoint Page:

http://epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/

Senate Considers Data Broker RegulationOn November 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill intendedto protect consumers when data brokers reveal sensitive personalinformation. The bill, S. 1789, requires a data broker to warn consumersabout a data breach if they face a "significant risk of harm" because ofthe breach. The bill passed out of committee, with 13 votes for and 5against. While 1789 lacks some provisions that would make a trulyeffective consumer protection law, it remains the strongest of theseveral data privacy bills currently under consideration by Congress.

S. 1789, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01789:

EPIC Replies to Carriers on Access to Phone Records
EPIC has taken a number of steps to eliminate the private risks causedby "online data brokers," companies that offer to obtain the informationof others through trickery. These companies often offer to obtain phonerecords without the knowledge or consent of the account holder.

EPIC first filed a complaint at the Federal Trade Commission,highlighting the activities of a specific online data broker that now isreportedly being investigated by state attorneys general. EPIC alsopetitioned the Federal Communications Commission to require carriers toincrease their protection for phone records. The carriers uniformlyopposed EPIC's petition, arguing that there should be enforcementactions brought against the online data brokers, but no additionalrequirements to protect phone records.

The carriers' responses reveal that there is disparity in their abilityto provide security for records. One carrier, for instance, balked atauditing requirements, claiming that the cost of implementation of thisbasic security measure would exceed $270 million. Other carriersclaimed that they already audit access to consumer records.

EPIC replied to these oppositions, stating that the mere existence of 40different websites that advertise the ability to obtain phone recordspoints to serious security weaknesses at the carriers. Furthermore,several news reporters have successfully obtained phone records usingthese online data brokers to test the carriers' security.

EPIC Reply Comments:

http://epic.org/privacy/iei/epicfccreply.html

EPIC Phone Record Privacy Page:

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

Privacy Protections Urged for Online Court Records
In recent years, federal and state courts have revisited their policiesfor access to public records because these registers frequently containpersonal information. Many of the identifiers necessary to commitidentity theft, for instance, can be found in county-level propertyrecords and other public records. Pennsylvania is the most recent stateto formulate a policy for access to electronic court records. Theproposed policy will eliminate Social Security numbers, full dates ofbirth, drivers license numbers, and full home addresses from electronicversions of court records. EPIC's comments on the proposed policypraised the policymakers for attempting to remove unique identifiersfrom the publicly-available file. EPIC urged the policymakers to applythe protections to paper records as well, and to create a mechanism sothat individuals can correct errors in court records easily.

EPIC Comments on Pennsylvania Access Policy:

http://epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/paecfcomments.html

EPIC Public Records Page:

http://epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/




[7] EPIC Bookstore: "Information Privacy Law"


By Daniel J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul M. Schwartzhttp://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html

For too many law students, informational privacy is a concept introducedbriefly in a first year torts class, and perhaps obliquely referenced ina constitutional law course. "Information Privacy Law" is a valuableresource to introduce students to the expansive universe of lawsurrounding access to, and control of, personal information.

The book provides comprehensive coverage of privacy law, withwell-organized coverage ranging from privacy and the press to medicaland genetic privacy to international privacy law. Two separate chaptersexplore the collection of personal data both by government agencies andby private companies.

Going beyond the chestnuts of privacy law, such as the Warren andBrandeis article, the text discusses privacy law in context with itshistorical development and current events. The chapter on privacy andlaw enforcement, for example, includes extensive sections onintercepting computer and electronic communications, as well asup-to-date discussion on the roles of surveillance and secrecy interrorism investigations.

Cases and articles are presented succinctly, with in-depth discussionnotes and questions designed to encourage thoughtful debate on theseevolving topics. "Information Privacy Law" is a valuable and accessiblecenterpiece for any course on privacy law.

-- Sherwin Siy

EPIC Publications:

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

This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides anoverview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over60 countries around the world.  The report outlines legal protections,new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy. 
Privacy & Human Rights 2004 is the most comprehensive report on privacyand data protection ever published.



"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 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.



"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

The World Summit on the Information Society. Government of Tunisia.
November 16-18, 2005. Tunis, Tunisia. For more information:
http://www.itu.int/wsis

Citizens' Summit on the Information Society. CSIS InternationalOrganizing Committee. November 16-18, 2005. Tunis, Tunisia. For moreinformation:
http://www.worldsummit2005.de/en/nav/14.htm

Privacy Conference: Building Bridges on ICANN's Whois Questions.
Noncommercial Users Constituency. November 29, 2005. Vancouver, Canada.
For more information (pdf):
http://www.ncdnhc.org/Privacy-Conference.pdf

EU Data Protection Directive 45/96: 10 Years On. Linklaters. November30, 2005. London, England. For more information:
http://www.biicl.org/index.asp?contentid=272

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/

Regulating Search: a Symposium on Search Engines, Law, and PublicPolicy. Yale Information Society Project, Yale Law School. December 3,
2005. New Haven, Connecticut. For more information:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/regulatingsearch.html

Committee Meeting of the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacyand Integrity Advisory Committee. Department of Homeland Security.
December 6, 2005. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0765.xml

Privacy in the Information Age: Databasese, Digital Dossiers, andSurveillance. High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University. January27, 2006. Santa Clara, California. For more information:
http://hightechlaw.scu.edu/law/hightech/news_and_events.html

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/2005/24.html