You are here:
WorldLII >>
Databases >>
EPIC Alert >>
2005 >>
[2005] EPICAlert 8
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Articles
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Help
EPIC Alert 12.07 [2005] EPICAlert 8
EPIC ALERT
Volume 12.07 April 7, 2005
Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_12.07.html
Table of Contents
[1] Congress Holds Hearings to Review USA PATRIOT Act
[2] Commercial Data Brokers Grilled at California Hearing
[3] EPIC Urges Privacy Safeguards for RFID and Copyright Technology
[4] Spotlight: Homeland Security's Access Card Less Than Secure
[5] Education Agency's Student Tracking Proposal Opposed
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Michael Caloyannides's Privacy & Computer Forensics
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
[1] Congress Holds Hearings to Review USA PATRIOT Act
This week Congress began reviewing the USA PATRIOT Act, somecontroversial provisions of which are slated to sunset at the end ofthis
year unless Congress moves to reauthorize them. The Senate andHouse Judiciary Committees each heard Attorney General Alberto Gonzalesdefend
the law and argue for renewal of its expiring provisions. Thecommittees will continue to hold hearings through April and part of
Mayon issues such as the FBI's wiretap authority and access to businessrecords.
Senate committee members grilled Gonzales and FBI Director RobertMueller on the law's broad definition of terrorism, as well as thestandards
the FBI must meet to obtain sneak-and-peek search warrants,which allow the government to delay notifying the target of aninvestigation
that a search has happened. The Senate committee'schairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, pressed Gonzales and Mueller on whetherthe standards
of proof the government must show in foreign intelligenceinvestigations should be more stringent. After the hearing, Sens. LarryCraig
and Dick Durbin announced plans to introduce legislation to rollback parts of the law.
In the House committee hearing, Gonzales was questioned sharply aboutits actions in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, such as
secretimmigration hearings. Gonzales conceded that "there were mistakesmade."
Most sunsetting provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act expanded eitherfederal wiretap law, which governs law enforcement interception of
andaccess to communications in criminal investigations, or the secretiveForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulates
the FBI'scollection of "foreign intelligence" information for intelligencepurposes. One of the most hotly debated provisions of the
USA PATRIOTAct allows the FBI to get a court order to obtain "any tangible things"
relevant to an investigation of foreign intelligence or internationalterrorist activities. People served with a warrant under this
provisionare not allowed to disclose the existence of the warrant or the factthat records or items were provided to the government.
Documentsobtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act last year showedthat this authority can be used to obtain items such as apartment keys,and that the FBI can collect information about
innocent people underthis provision.
Congress included a sunset provision in the USA PATRIOT Act so that itwould have an opportunity to review the government's more extremeinvestigative
powers at a less emotionally charged time. However,little information has been made public on how the FBI is using itsauthority under
the USA PATRIOT Act. As Sen. Patrick Leahy said inhis statement during the Senate Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing,
"we have heard over and over again that there have been no abuses as aresult of the PATRIOT Act. But it is difficult, if not impossible,
toverify that claim when some of the most controversial surveillancepowers in the PATRIOT Act operate under a cloak of secrecy."
Last month, EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to theFBI seeking information about how the agency has used its expanded powerunder the expiring provisions of the Act. EPIC
argued for expeditedprocessing, noting the importance of such information to the public andcongressional debate surrounding the renewal
of these authorities. EPIChas also posted a Web page on the sunsetting provisions of the law.
USA PATRIOT Act documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom ofInformation Act are available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia
Statement of Senator Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing onOversight of the USA PATRIOT Act:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/upasunset.html
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing "Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act":
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1439
House Judiciary Committee hearing "USA PATRIOT Act: A Review for thePurpose of Its Reauthorization."
http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=128
EPIC's FOIA request to the FBI (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/sunsetfoia.pdf
EPIC's USA PATRIOT Sunset page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/sunset.html
EPIC's USA PATRIOT Act page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
[2] Commercial Data Brokers Grilled at California Hearing
California State Sen. Jackie Speier put Choicepoint, LexisNexis, andAcxiom in the hot seat at a hearing before the State's Senate
BankingCommittee. All three companies have had major privacy breaches in thelast two years. Speier, who chairs the committee, asked
a series ofhard-hitting questions probing why Choicepoint did not disclose itsdata breach sooner and how all the companies' systems
were compromised.
Speier also expressed skepticism concerning the data brokers' definitionof "sensitive" information, which the industry defines as
SocialSecurity Numbers and driver's license numbers. When these sameidentifiers appear in public records, LexisNexis treats them
asnon-sensitive, and sells them to the company's clients. Speier statedthat the identifiers were "indeed sensitive to most people
in thisnation...[the commercial data brokers' definition of"sensitive"]...doesn't reflect reality."
The hearing began with testimony from Elizabeth Rosen, a Californianurse whose information was sold to criminals by Choicepoint. Rosenexplained
in detail her frustration with Choicepoint, because thecompany would not provide her with her full profile. A portion of herfile
that she did receive had errors on almost every page: multipleincorrect addresses; that she owned companies, including a deli; andthat
she maintained a private mailbox at Mailboxes Etc. Senator AlanLowenthal asked Choicepoint why the company wouldn't give Rosen the
sameinformation the company had sold to criminals, but the Choicepointrepresentative didn't directly answer the question.
EPIC West Director Chris Jay Hoofnagle's testimony before the committeefocused on three issues. First, Mr. Hoofnagle emphasized that
thelegislature should approach the commercial data broker issue primarilyas a privacy problem rather than a security issue. Mr. Hoofnagle'stestimony
highlighted the Choicepoint subscriber agreement, whichincludes categories for a wide range of businesses considered qualifiedfor
access to personal data. They include: attorneys, banking,financial, retail, wholesale, insurance, human resources, securitycompanies,
process servers, news media, bail bonds, and "other." Even ifChoicepoint and other data brokers sold personal information in a secureway,
the base problem is that the company continues to sell personalinformation to this wide array of businesses.
Second, Mr. Hoofnagle highlighted the difference between Choicepoint'sregulated information services, such as employment and tenant
screeningservices, and the company's unregulated "public records" reports.
Legislative attention should be focused on these unregulated informationproducts. Mr. Hoofnagle told legislators that Choicepoint
plays a "shellgame" with its products
--
Choicepoint representatives don't alwaysspecify in policy debates whether they are discussing their regulated orunregulated reports,
thus confusing the public and lawmakers.
Finally, Mr. Hoofnagle suggested that California legislators take swiftaction to address data brokers by following a framework authored
byGeorge Washington University Law School Professor Daniel Solove and Mr.
Hoofnagle.
Choicepoint apologized for selling personal information to criminals,and announced a series of reforms. The company will no longer
sell"sensitive" personal information to small businesses. Small businesseswill still be able to buy Choicepoint reports, but it appears
thatSocial Security Numbers will be truncated in some fashion. The companywill still sell its full reports to big businesses and
federal, state,and local law enforcement agencies (Choicepoint has contracts with 7,000law enforcement agencies). The company also
announced that it is workingon a system to provide access to all of its information products.
However, individuals will not be able to correct their "public records"
reports. Choicepoint also announced that the company could automaticallyredact SSNs that appear in public records.
Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum previewed a report on commercialdata brokers that reveals a very high error rate in personal
informationreports. In her sample, 90% of the reports obtained contained errors;
frequently these errors were serious, such as individuals beingidentified by the wrong sex. Dixon also told legislators that companiesare
using "anti-fraud" loopholes in privacy law to justify expansiveinformation use.
EPIC West Testimony on Commercial Data Brokers:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/casban3.30.05.html
Model Privacy Regime Version 2.0 by Daniel Solove and Chris Hoofnagle:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=699701
[3] EPIC Urges Privacy Safeguards for RFID and Copyright Technology
EPIC and other civil liberties groups have filed comments urging theState Department to abandon its plans to require RFID passports
for allAmerican travelers. The comments state that the proposal is flawedbecause the agency lacks legal authority to require RFID
traveldocuments. The proposal also lacks evidence to support that RFID-enabledpassports are necessary or that their benefits outweigh
thesecurity risks inherent in having the data in a contactless andunencrypted format. Also, the State Department failed to conduct
aprivacy impact assessment of the new technology as mandated by law.
In earlier comments to the working document on RFID technology of theArticle 29 Working Group, an association of leading European
privacyofficials, EPIC recommended strong safeguards for RFIDs, and prohibitionof "chipping" people and using unencrypted RFID passports.
Furthermore,strong privacy standards (like EPIC's own RFID Privacy Guidelines)
should be used when RFID tags are placed on consumer products in theretail environment.
In other comments to the same Working Group on digital rights managementsystems (DRM), EPIC and the Yale Law School Information Society
Projectfocused on the intersection of copyright protection and user's privacy.
(DRM systems track the online use of digital works.) After showing howDRM designs invade the privacy of digital media users, the commentsrecommended
strict enforcement of data protection regulations already inplace.
EPIC, EFF et al, Comments on RFID passports (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/rfid_passports-0405.pdf
EPIC Comments on RFID to the Article 29 Working Group (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/comments_art29.pdf
EPIC and Yale Law School, Comments on DRM to the Article 29 WorkingGroup (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/drm/comments_art29.pdf
EPIC's RFID page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid
EPIC's VeriChip page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/verichip.html
EPIC's DRM page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/drm/
[4] Spotlight: Homeland Security's Access Card Less Than Secure
President Bush's proposed $2.57 trillion federal budget for Fiscal Year2006 greatly increases the amount of money spent on surveillancetechnology
and programs while cutting about 150 programs—most of themfrom the Department of Education. EPIC's "Spotlight on Surveillance"
project scrutinizes these surveillance programs.
This month, EPIC evaluates the Department of Homeland Security's newemployee access card and finds significant security risks. The
wirelesstechnologies linked to the Department of Homeland Security Access Card(DAC) leave employees' personal information vulnerable
to access bycriminals. Also, the Department further exposes the card by its broadexpansion of the card's function to turn it into
a payment device, onethat would be used several times a day in unsecured locations such asMetro train stations.
Beginning in May and through the end of the year, Homeland Security willissue the DAC to 40,000 of its 180,000 employees and contractors.
TheDAC is about the size of a credit card and will carry a digital copy ofthe cardholder's fingerprint as well as other information.
TheDepartment requests $6 million for the DAC program in FY 2006, andeach card costs about $8.50Homeland Security has assumed
that there will be some problems with thebiometric identifier system on the DAC. The Department has a backupsystem built into the
card—if the fingerprint identification fails, thenthe employee can gain access by using a 6- to 8- digit PIN. By allowingalternate
access through the PIN, Homeland Security creates all of thevulnerabilities associated with allowing complete access to secure areasand
information through one password. This is a significant securityrisk, as a criminal could bypass the biometric identification system
bysimply learning the PIN. Even without the PIN bypass there are risks toequipping the card with the power to access not only the
Department ofHomeland Security's resources, but also those of local, state and otherfederal government entities.
Department of Homeland Security's DAC site:
https://dhscio.net/dhs_info_center.html
EPIC's Spotlight on Surveillance page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0405.html
EPIC's Biometrics page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/biometrics/
[5] Education Agency's Student Tracking Proposal Opposed
The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), part of theDepartment of Education, has published a feasibility study on therenewal
of the postsecondary education statistic that would lead to thecreation of a "database of millions of students records." The reportexamined
the feasibility of implementing a student unit record system.
The study proposed replacing the existing Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System (IPEDS), which is based on institution-levelaggregate
data, with a system that requires individualized raw dataabout every student at American collegiate institutions.
Today, student unit record data is only collected on by the federalgovernment if a student receives federal student loans. Under the
NCESproposal all public and private universities and colleges would berequired to submit their student data for the NCES database.
Eachstudent's unit record contains 40 personal items, notably the student'sSocial Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification
Number,date of birth, gender, race and permanent address. The feasibility studyproposed that "[i]ndividual identifiable data would
remain within thepermanent storage system" and have "new records added every year."
Department of Education officials have repeatedly complained about thestatistics' inability to depict modern trends in higher education.
Present postsecondary education statistics are not sensitive tonon-traditional students because IPEDS is only designed to collect
dataon full-time students. The rationale for requiring students with norelationship with the Department of Education to provide the
NCES with acomplete track record of their higher education pursuits isquestionable. EPIC and other privacy groups stated that statisticalpurposes
alone are not strong enough reasons to infringe upon students'
rights to educational privacy.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the US Attorney General and the Department ofJustice would have access to this comprehensive federal studentdatabase.
There is also the strong possibility that such a databasewould suffer from mission creep
--
the information gathered would be usedfor non-statistical purposes.
The United States Student Association opposes the creation of database.
According to the USSA, "There are few protections offered for studentsunder this proposal. They don’t have the opportunity to opt
out, evenstudents who don’t receive federal student aid." The NationalAssociation of Independent Colleges & Universities also objects
to itscreation. The NAICU said, "We do not believe that the price forenrolling in college should be permanent entry into a federal
registry,and we fear that the existence of such a massive registry will proveirresistible to future demands for access to the data
fornon-educational purposes."
Katherine Haley Will, the President of Gettysburg College, warnedrecently that "The potential for abuse of power and violation of
civilliberties is immense. The database would begin with 15 million-plusrecords of students in the first year and grow. These student
recordswould be held by the federal government for at least the life of thestudent."
Congress will likely consider the recommendations of the NCESfeasibility study during debates about the reauthorization of the HigherEducation
Act. However, lawmakers showed great reluctance to implement avast student record database during passage of the No Child Left BehindAct.
In that Act, Congress explicitly prohibited the development of anationwide database of personally identifiable information on childrenfrom
kindergarten through high school.
NCES's Feasibility of a Student Unit Record System Within the IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005160
NAICU Issue Summary: Student Unit Record Data:
http://www.naicu.edu/HEA/UnitRecord-NAICUIssueSummary.shtml
"Alma Mater As Big Brother," The Washington Post, March 29, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8331-2005Mar28.html
EPIC's Student Privacy page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/student/
[6] News in Brief
Reports Scrutinize Secure Flight, Agency's Passenger Data PracticesThe Government Accountability Office recently released a report
on theSecure Flight passenger prescreening proposal, concluding that theTransportation Security Administration still has many issues
to addressbefore the feasibility of the program can be known, though the agencyplans to launch the program in August. The report,
commissioned byCongress, stated that the office could not evaluate a number of aspectsof Secure Flight including the effectiveness
of the system, the accuracyof intelligence data that will determine whether passengers may fly,safeguards to protect passenger privacy,
and the adequacy of redress forpassengers who are improperly flagged by the program.
In related news, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector Generalissued findings on the TSA's role in collecting and disseminatingairline
passenger data to third party agencies and companies. The reportrevealed that the agency has been involved in 14 transfers of datainvolving
more than 12 million passenger records. The Inspector Generalfound, among other things, that "TSA did not consistently apply
privacyprotections in the course of its involvement in airline passenger datatransfers." Furthermore, TSA did not accurately
represent to the publicthe scope of its passenger data collection and use.
Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: Secure FlightDevelopment and Testing Under Way, but Risks Should Be Managed as
Systemis Further Developed (pdf):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05356.pdf
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, Review of theTransportation Security Administration's Role in the Use andDissemination
of Airline Passenger Data:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/igdhsreport.html
EPIC's Secure Flight page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/secureflight.htmlEU Asks US to Delay Deadline for Biometric Passports RequirementThe European Union has asked the US to delay the deadline for therequirement
that visitors entering the country without visas hold apassport with a biometric identifier. European Justice CommissionerFranco
Frattini has written to Congress asking for the October 2005deadline to be pushed back to August 2006. Frattini says that it istaking
longer than expected to address interoperability and securityissues with the biometric readers, and that only six EU countries are
ina position to meet the October deadline. If the US agrees to the demand,it will be the second extension to the biometric passport
deadline.
EPIC's Biometrics page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/biometrics/
EPIC Supports WHOIS Privacy CampaignEPIC has joined with Go Daddy and others to urge a federal agency torestore the right of Internet
users to maintain private Web siteregistrations. In February, the National Telecommunication andInformation Administration disallowed
private registrations for .USdomain names, without a hearing, rulemaking, or public debate. Theaction undercuts online privacy, puts
individuals at risk, and
threatens Constitutional values.
Sign the petition at:
http://www.thedangerofnoprivacy.com/
EPIC's WHOIS page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/whois/
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Michael Caloyannides's Privacy & Computer Forensics
Michael A. Caloyannides, Privacy Protection and Computer Forensics(Artech House Publishers 2004)
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=61-1580538304-1
"Going far beyond typical computer forensics books, this thoroughlyrevised edition of an Artech House bestseller is the only book
on themarket that focuses on how to protect one's privacy from data theft,hostile computer forensics, and legal action. It addresses
the concernsof today's IT professionals, as well as many users of personalcomputers, offering more detailed "how to" guidance on
protecting theconfidentiality of data stored on computers. Moreover, the secondedition has been updated to include specific information
on thevulnerabilities of ancillary computing devices, such as PDAs, cellulartelephones and smart cards. This cutting-edge book identifies
thespecific areas where sensitive and potentially incriminating data ishiding in computers and consumer electronics, and explains
how to goabout removing this data. The book provides a systematic process forinstalling operating systems and application software
that will help tominimize the possibility of security compromises, and numerous specificsteps that need to be taken to prevent the
hostile exploitation of one'scomputer."
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
A Brookings Briefing: Offshoring and Privacy: Consumer Data in theGlobal Economy. April 08, 2005. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20050408.htm
Private Conduct/Private Places: New Media, Surveillance, Sexuality.
April 8-9, 2005. UC Berkeley. For more information:
http://cnm.berkeley.edu/events_news/index.php
RFID Journal LIVE! 2005. April 10-12. Chicago, IL. For moreinformation: http://www.rfidjournallive.com.
Future of Music Coalition DC Policy Day. April 12, 2005 Washington, DC.
For more information:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/dcpolicyday05/
CFP2005: Fifteenth Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom andPrivacy. April 12-15, 2005. Seattle, WA. For more information:
http://www.cfp2005.org.
OECD Workshop on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress in the GlobalMarketplace. April 19-20, 2005. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,2340,en_2649_34267_34409185_1_1_1_1,00.html
2005 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer SocietyTechnical Committee on Security and Privacy in cooperation with
TheInternational Association for Cryptologic Research. May 8-11, 2005.
Berkeley, CA. For more information:
target="new">http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2005/oakland05-cfp.html.
Sixth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: Data Protection - The Convergenceof Privacy & Security. May 23-24, 2005. Atlanta, Ga. For
moreinformation:
http://www.pli.edu/product/program_detail.asp?ptid=511&stid=3&id=
EN00000000019985
SEC2005: Security and Privacy in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing.
Technical Committee on Security & Protection in Information ProcessingSystems with the support of Information Processing Society of
Japan.
May 30-June 1, 2005. Chiba, Japan. For more information:
http://www.sec2005.org.
Sixth Annual Institute on Privacy Law: Data Protection - The Convergenceof Privacy & Security. June 6-7, 2005. San Francisco, CA.
For moreinformation: http://www.pli.edu/
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.
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.
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/2005/8.html
