E P I C A l e r t
With the slogan "Shaping Policies for Creativity, Confidence and Convergence in the Digital World", the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) held the 2008 Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy in Seoul, South Korea on June 17 and 18. The Meeting, which was the first OECD Ministerial Meeting held in Asia, brought together Ministers, senior government officials, the heads of major intergovernmental organisations, industry leaders and representatives of the Internet technical community, civil society and organised labour. In all, close to 2,200 participants from 68 economies attended the Meeting, which was webcast. In addition to the participants, many more contributed to the Meeting via the Internet.
The Government of Korea hosted the Meeting, which was chaired by Mr. See Joong CHOI, Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission. Opening addresses were made by Mr. CHOI and Mr. Angel GURRÍA, Secretary-General of the OECD. A congratulatory address was made, via video, by Mr. BAN Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations. Mr. Myung-bak LEE, President of the Republic of Korea, welcomed Ministers and participants and highlighted the importance of the Internet for the global economy and society, and the need to strengthen international co-operation in key areas, including information security. Chairmn CHOI stated in the summary of the conference:
The growing impacts of the Internet on economies and on society were highlighted, as was its role in spurring innovation and growth. While the number of users and high-speed access are growing rapidly worldwide, concerns were expressed about digital divides, both within and among countries. Efforts to expand access need to continue. Mobile devices with Internet access, it was noted, could contribute importantly in this regard as their use in developing countries is advancing rapidly; this is expected to continue.
Other important issues would also need to be addressed. Users are concerned, for example, about malware, identity theft, privacy and security. On the technological front, convergence of information and communication platforms, new generation networks and high-speed Internet access are benefitting society, but their rapid development is challenging regulatory bodies, as existing approaches are often inadequate to respond to rapid changes in markets. It was suggested that changes in policies and regulations might best focus on two principles – promoting competition and protecting consumers.
Chairman CHOI also acknowledged the role of civil society and organized labor:
Civil society and organised labour urged that policy goals for the Internet Economy be considered within the broader framework of the protection of human rights, the promotion of democratic institutions, access to information and the provision of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced communications networks and services. They made a number of recommendations, stressing the need for OECD countries to: i) defend freedom of expression and, in this context, oppose mandated filtering, censorship and criminalisation of content that is protected under international freedom of expression standards; ii) protect privacy and transparency by, for example, establishing international data standards that are legally enforceable; and iii) address the learning and training needs of workers and environmental issues. In addition, they urged that a civil society advisory committee to the OECD be established to formalise its participation in the work of the Organisation.
Chairman CHOI affirmed the ongoing importance of privacy protection at the Ministerial conference, stating that "the protection of privacy was identified as a cross-cutting challenge to be systematically addressed at the earliest possible design stage of technology."
Mr. Angel GURRÍA, the Secretary General of the Paris-based organization also spoke about privacy protection and described the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines as the "foundation guidelines for most countries' privacy standards". He remarked that the Privacy Guidelines have "stood the test of time", but that the growth of business models built around data mining and the multiplication of social networking sites require that we understand and ask ourselves: "[W]hat are the risks, what are the benefits and how to adapt policy to this new environment?"
A major accomplishment of Civil Society organizations of the Public Voice coalition was the recommendation made by the Secretary General of the OECD to "begin the process of formalizing the participation of Civil Society and the Technical Community in the work of the OECD on the Internet economy".
The OECD Ministerial Meeting ended with the adoption of the OECD Seoul Declaration, a document signed by Ministers and representatives of 42 countries. Also the OECD released "Shaping Policies for the Future of the Internet Economy", a report which links the Seoul Ministerial Declaration on the Future of the Internet Economy to the analytical work and policy guidance developed for the Ministerial by the OECD. The OECD also issued Policy Guidance for Protecting and Empowering Consumers in Communications Services and Policy Guidance For Addressing Emerging Consumer Protection And Empowerment Issues In Mobile Commerce. Other important recommendations include the OECD Policy Guidance on Radio Frequency Identification and the OECD Policy Guidance on Online Identity Theft.
The OECD offered an important forum for the discussion of policies concerning the future of the Internet. Civil Society welcomed this dialogue and urged the Ministers and Members Countries of the OECD to fully engage Civil Society and Labor Organizations within their own countries. Ministers agreed to review the OECD Declaration and the progress made towards the achievement of its goals and principles by 2011.
In a related development, EU Consumer Commissioner Meglena Kuneva set out, on June 24, five priority areas for action for consumer policy in the digital age. She stressed the need "to eliminate the next generation of unfair commercial practices rapidly arising online" and "to ensure that in the heated debates surrounding privacy, the voice of the consumers is clearly heard". She emphasized: "informed consent is the central privacy issue that consumer policy must next address".
OECD Ministerial Meeting
Facebook: How can Internet make the world a better place?
Summary of the Chair of the OECD Meeting (pdf):
2008 OECD Seoul Declaration on the Future of the Internet Economy (pdf):
Shaping Policies for the Future of the Internet Economy (pdf):
Shaping Policies for the Future of the Internet Economy: Annexes (pdf):
1998 Ottawa Ministerial meeting on E-Commerce.
European Commission sets out 5 priorities for consumer policy in a digital age:
On June 16, 2008, more than 150 participants from 15 countries gathered in Seoul, South Korea, for the Civil Society - Labor Forum "Making the Future of the Internet Economy Work for Citizens, Consumers, and Workers. The event was organized by the Public Voice coalition, the Trade Union Advisory Committee, and the OECD Civil Society Reference group, which includes the Association for Progressive Communications, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public interest Clinic, Consumers Korea, the European Digital Rights Initiative, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Internet Governance Project, and the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue.
This Forum addressed the issues of utmost importance for the internet economy. Prominent advocates from the academic, consumer, development, digital rights, labour, and privacy communities engaged government delegates on topics of relevance to the Ministerial, as well as issues of fundamental concern to civil society and organized labor.
The Forum consisted of interactive policy roundtables, covering the future of the Internet from 5 perspectives: the Human and political dimension; Towards a better future – Decent work, social justice and sustainable development in a global internet economy; Fuelling creativity and access to knowledge (A2K); Ensuring consumer and privacy protection and benefitting from convergence.
The civil society and labor participants brought the attention of the assembled OECD Ministers and Member countries to important concerns and aspirations of people around the world. These participants also prepared Civil Society Background paper that was distributed at the OECD Ministerial. And the civil society and labor representatives prepared the Seoul Declaration, which has been signed by more than 80 organizations.
The groups said that the Future of the Internet Economy should be considered within the broader framework of protection of human rights, the promotion of democratic institutions, and the provision of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced communication infrastructures and services. Economic growth should be for the many and not the few.
The Civil Society Labor Declaration urged the OECD Ministers and member countries to:
* "Defend freedom of expression and oppose mandated filtering, censorship of Internet content, and criminalisation of content that is protected under international freedom of expression standards.
* "Support the OECD Privacy Guidelines of 1980 as a fundamental policy instrument setting out minimal requirements for the transborder flow of personal data.
* "Ensure that consumer protection laws are properly enforced and cover digital products to the same extent that other consumer goods and services are covered.
* "Promote learning and training opportunities for workers and to address the challenges brought about by the change of corporations and work by combining policies facilitating both technological and organizational change.
* "Support open access to government-funded scientific and scholarly works. We further emphasize access to information as a fundamental right and support the OECD’s continued work in this area.
* "Support Internet governance structures that reflect democratic values and are transparent and publicly accountable to users.
* "Oppose discrimination by network providers against particular applications, devices, or content and to maintain the Internet's role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication.
* "Maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property protection based upon mechanisms that are least intrusive to personal privacy and least restrictive for the development of new technologies, and to promote creativity and learning.
* "Develop a better understanding of the challenge industry consolidations pose to the open Internet.
* "Support the efforts of the OECD to promote access to the full range of the world's cultures and to ensure that the Internet economy reflects the true diversity of language, art, science, and literature in our world. The deployment of International Domain Names should be a priority."
Civil society and organized labor further urged the OECD to establish the Civil Society Advisory Committee. The creation of the OECD Civil Society Advisory Committee will help meet the democratic goals of inclusion, participation, transparency and accountability in international decision-making.
The Public Voice works to promote public participation in decisions concerning the future of the Internet. The Civil Society Seoul Declaration is open to additional signatures. Send confirmation to thepublicvoice (AT) datos-personales (DOT) org.
Key Issues in Civil Society Declaration are:
* Freedom of expression. * Protection of Privacy and Transparency. * Consumer Protection. * Employment, Decent Work and Skills. * Promotion of Access to Knowledge. * Internet Governance. * Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. * Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. * Support for Pluralistic Media. * Inclusive Digital Society. * Cultural Diversity.
The Public Voice
Facebook: The Public Voice
OECD Civil Society Forum in Seoul:
Recommendations and Contributions to the OECD Ministerial Meeting (pdf):
The Civil Society & Organized Labour Seoul Declaration (English) (pdf):
The Civil Society & Organized Labour Seoul Declaration (Korean) (pdf):
The Civil Society & Organized Labour Seoul Declaration (Spanish) (pdf):
The Civil Society & Organized Labour Seoul Declaration (Hungarian) (pdf):
Declaration Signatures (as of June 23, 2008) (pdf):
Sign on to the Civil Society Seoul Declaration:
thepublicvoice (AT) datos-personales (DOT) org
On June 17, 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an order requiring telemarketers to comply with new amendments to the operation of the National Do-Not-Call Registry. This order was based upon the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, which eliminates the need to re-register phone numbers after five years and prohibits telemarketers from calling numbers that have been on the list for longer than that amount of time.
Concerns were raised in late 2007 that several million numbers would expire as the Registry reached its fifth year of operation in 2008. Under the initial provisions of the Registry, numbers would automatically be removed after five years unless the owner of the number re-registered on the list. Under the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act, however, automatic removal is prohibited. A number will stay on the list until the consumer cancels it or it is manually removed as a disconnected or reassigned number. With respect to the latter situation, the Act requires the FTC to periodically check phone numbers on the Registry for disconnected or reassigned numbers which will then be removed from the list.
The Do-Not-Call Registry was created in 2003 by the FCC in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to increasing consumer privacy concerns. Since its inception, the Registry has been used extensively. The first three days of the Registry's existence brought in more than 10 million phone numbers. Growth of the Registry has continued and today more than 157 million numbers are registered. EPIC has been involved in advocating for the Do-Not-Call Registry since its creation, as well as advocating against proposed loopholes for automated, prerecorded calls in 2005.
Although the amendments are good news for those who have been registered on the national list for five years, the FCC order clarifies that the amendments do not extend to company specific “do not call” lists. Companies are required to maintain their own “do not call” lists in response to company-specific consumer requests. This is largely exercised by consumers who have not opted in to the national Do-Not-Call Registry. The rules governing company-specific lists are not within the scope of the current order, so companies are free to continue automatically purging these lists after five years. Because of this, the best way to avoid telemarketing calls and protect consumer privacy continues to be the national Do-Not-Call Registry.
The FCC order requiring telemarketers to honor numbers that have been on the list for longer than five years (pdf):
The FCC's Do-Not-Call website, including information on how to enroll and file a complaint:
EPIC's page on the Do-Not-Call Registry
EPIC's page on telemarketing:
In a victory for government transparency, the Supreme Court recently and unanimously upheld an individual's right to request documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) even if others previously requested the same documents. In Taylor v. Sturgell, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) argued that the agency might deny a requester access to government records based on another individual's previous FOIA request regarding the same documents. The agency argued that the second requester was precluded from suing for the documents, and that the second requester had been “virtually represented” by the previous requester. The Supreme Court rejected the FAA's arguments, and refused to limit FOIA rights on the basis of “virtual representation.” Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, basing the decision, in part, on America's “deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his day in court.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the agency's argument that FOIA lawsuits should be precluded more often than other cases on the basis that FOIA suits constitute “public-law” litigation, rather than a “private-law” controversies. The FAA alleged that open government lawsuits have “only an indirect impact on [the requester's] interests,” and that courts may therefore “adopt procedures limiting repetitive litigation.” The Supreme Court rejected this argument, recognizing that “a successful FOIA action results in a grant of relief to the individual plaintiff,” and is therefore subject to normal rules concerning limitations on an individual's right to sue.
The FOIA establishes a legal right for individuals to obtain records in the possession of government agencies. The federal law is critical for the functioning of democratic government because it helps ensure that the public is fully informed about matters of public concern. The FOIA has helped uncover fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government. It has become particularly important in recent years, as the government has tried to keep more of its activities secret.
EPIC has obtained numerous government documents through freedom of information requests and litigation. EPIC's FOIA Notes publication provides public access to particularly important government documents. FOIA Notes has featured documents relating to secret contracts between the Virginia Fusion Intelligence Center and the Federal Bureau of investigation; the unreliability of E-Passports; unlawful intelligence investigations; and errors involving the “no-fly” list. EPIC recently prevailed in open government litigation concerning the Virginia Fusion Center, and is presently involved in FOIA litigation relating to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping scheme, as well as an apparent conflict of interest in the Federal Trade Commission's review of the Google/Doubleclick merger. Public disclosure of this information improves government oversight and accountability. It also helps ensure that the public is fully informed about government activities.
Supreme Court Opinion in Taylor v. Sturgell (pdf):
EPIC's FOIA Notes:
EPIC's FOIA Litigation Manual - Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws:
EPIC's FOIA Litigation Docket:
Charter Communications, one of the nation's largest ISPs, announced Tuesday that it will scrap its pilot program to intercept Internet traffic for marketing purposes. In mid-May, Charter told customers in four markets that behavioral advertiser NebuAd would install monitoring boxes on its network in order to track users' browsing habits and deliver targeted advertising. NebuAd planned to target ads to users by using deep packet inspection of their network traffic, which can reveal the substance of nearly all Internet traffic over a subscriber's connection, including Web surfing content, search engine queries, and e-mail messages.
Network neutrality advocates criticized this sort of intensive inspection and monitoring, as well as the online advertising context in the UK. A report leaked earlier this month from British Telecom (BT) described that ISP's secret interception of its users' browsing history. BT, in conjunction with behavioral advertiser Phorm, installed boxes that hijacked and saved the content of users' Internet activity, permitting Phorm to create ad profiles of each user. Charter's deep packet inspection program was to be the first large-scale implementation by a major US Internet Service Provider.
Charter's decision to drop its spy program comes after senior members of Congress challenged the legality of Charter's plan to intercept and inspect their customers' Internet activity. Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) stated that the program "raises substantial questions" related to the federal Cable Television Privacy Act, and requested that Charter hold off on the proposed venture with NebuAd. The Cable Television Privacy Act prohibits cable companies from disclosing subscribers' personally identifiable information without "prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber." Legal experts also criticized Charter's plan, and suggested that it ran afoul of the federal Wiretap Act, which bars interception of wire and electronic communications.
Shortly after Charter announced the program's suspension, Representative Markey released a statement praising the decision, but repeating his concerns that the program violated the law. “Given the serious privacy concerns raised by the sophisticated ad-serving technology Charter Communications planned to test market, I am pleased to hear that the company has decided to delay implementation of this program, which electronically profiled individual consumer Web usage,” he said. “I urge other broadband companies considering similar user profiling programs to similarly hold off on implementation while these important privacy concerns can be addressed.”
Recently, two digital rights groups, Public Knowledge and Free Press, released a study detailing how NebuAd's hardware uses security exploits to spy on users. According to the study, NebuAd actively injects fake packets into responses from other websites in order to deliver the tracking cookies that facilitate its advertising model. The study describes how NebuAd's practices violate fundamental expectations of Internet privacy, security and standards-based interoperability. The Los Angeles Times revealed that at least five high-ranking NebuAd employees are veterans of the spyware company that produced Gator, the notorious spyware program, which installed without user consent, tracked users' browsing habits, and spewed targeted pop-up ads.
ISPs aren't the only companies trying to turn browsing habits into targeted Web advertising. Earlier Tuesday, Google announced a tool called Ad Planner. This tool helps advertisers find Web sites whose visitors match various demographics. Google claims that the tool can also show in detail how many people visit a particular Web site.
Charter announces that it will drop its program:
Rep. Markey's response to Charter announcement:
EPIC's page on Deep Packet Inspection:
Report on NebuAd's invasive Deep Packet Inspection techniques (pdf):
Google Introduces Ad Planner
Senators Oppose House “Compromise” FISA Bill
A bipartisan group of Senators is emerging to challenge the recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on the grounds that they are inadequate in protecting civil liberties. On June 20, 2008, the House passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304. The bill provides retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. Courts will be bound to follow the President's determination that the program was legal, rather than actually inquire into the program and judge the actions of the President. Also, the bill continues the expansion of warrantless surveillance powers from last year's Protect America Act until 2012, and requires that Inspectors General inquire into the warrantless surveillance program.
Sen. Specter's Comments on FISA:
Sens. Dodd and Feingold's Letter Urging Congressional Leaders to Protect Americans' Privacy and Not to Grant Retroactive Immunity to Telecoms:
Sen. Leahy's Comment on FISA Amendments Act of 2008:
EPIC page on FISA:
GAO Report: Alternatives Exist for Enhancing Protection of Privacy
A June 18th Government Accountability Office report recommends increased privacy protections for personal data held by the Federal Government. The congressional watchdog called on legislators to expand the scope of current laws concerning Federal use of personal information and to reform the mechanisms for how that data is collected, processed and shared. The GAO urged revisions of regulations governing use of personal information and public notice. The report responds to increasingly sophisticated methods for obtaining and using personal information. The GAO considered the effectiveness of current privacy laws. The report included the Privacy Act of 1974, which protects information held by federal agencies and the E-Government Act of 2002, which requires federal agencies to conduct privacy impact assessments before developing or purchasing new technologies that collect personal information electronically. The GAO recognized the importance of fair information practices, and highlighted three broad privacy shortcomings. First, the Privacy Act and E-Government Act do not always provide protections for federal uses of personal information. Furthermore, the laws and guidance may not effectively limit agency collection and use of personal information to specific purposes. Finally, the Privacy Act may not include effective mechanisms for informing the public about privacy concerns.
Government Accountability Office Report (pdf):
EPIC - “Your Right to Federal Records:
Privacy Disconnect Between Executives and Marketing Departments
The Ponemon Institute, a privacy research organization, and StrongMail, an email marketing firm, conducted a study which revealed an alarming disconnect in companies between the executives responsible for protecting customer data and the marketing departments that use customer data for advertising and sharing with third parties. Results from the study showed that 80% of marketers claimed their organizations share e-mail addresses with third parties, compared to 47% of security and privacy officers. The inconsistency in these claims raises questions and doubts about how well companies are protecting their customers' data. One consequence of this disconnect is an increase in spam. Of the marketers surveyed, 44% believed their organization was in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. EPIC testified before the D.C. Council that “analyses of spam volume indicate that spam accounts for approximately 80% of email traffic, and consumers receive more spam now than when the federal CAN-SPAM law was passed in 2003”.
EPIC Testifies Before the DC Council on Spam Legislation (pdf):
The CAN-SPAM Act:
StrongMail and Ponemon Institute Survey Reveals Risks to Customer Data Introduced by Marketing Practices and Perceptions (pdf):
EPIC Speaks at American Bar Association Cyberlaw Conference
Lillie Coney, Associate Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, recently spoke at a panel at the American Bar Association Cyberlaw conference. In the panel, entitled “Privacy Rights vs. Profit Rights:, What Are the Limits for Tracking,_Data Mining, and Marketing, Online Practices of Internet Users?”, Ms. Coney spoke regarding the problems with self regulation in the online advertising industry, including the Federal Trade Commissions proposed new voluntary online advertising principles. “The opt-out cookie system used by ad network participants has been shown technologically ineffective” Ms. Coney said. She went on to point out that future legislation ought to protect consumer's information, instead of just protecting against certain advertising practices. The panelists also included Annie Anton, associate professor of software engineering at North Carolina State University, who discussed the complications of privacy policies; and Google's Senior Policy Counsel Pablo Chavez, who discussed Google's privacy policies.
EPIC.org: Privacy Self Regulation: A Decade of Disappointment
Second Annual Institute on Cyberlaw: Expanding the Horizons (pdf):
FTC proposed new voluntary online advertising principles (pdf):
[Editor's note: Monday, June 30, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama, one of the most important privacy cases of all time. Professor Anita L. Allen, a leading privacy scholar, author of many books and articles, and a member of the EPIC Board of Directors prepared this essay to celebrate this anniversary. The complete essay by Professor Allen and related links for NAACP v. Alabama are available at http://www.naacpvalabamaat50.org]
"NAACP v. Alabama, Privacy and Data Protection," by Anita L. Allen, J.D., Ph.D., Henry R. Silverman professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy University of Pennsylvania School of Law -
"The United States Supreme Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama ex. Rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) turns 50 this year. For those who value privacy it is a birthday worth remembering.
"In NAACP v. Alabama, the Court affirmed that the constitutional rights of speech and assembly include a right of private group association. The idea that Americans are free to join private groups was not new in 1958. However, the Court's decision to allow private groups to keep membership information confidential was an important constitutional milestone.
"In 1956, the state of Alabama demanded a copy of the NAACP's membership list, as part of its effort to expel the group from the state for allegedly violating a state business law. But the Supreme Court held that the civil rights group had a right to keep its members' identities secret, whether or not a technical business law had been broken. Revealing the group's membership, argued the Court, “is likely to affect adversely the ability of [the NAACP] and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure.
"Whether handwritten on lined paper or stored electronically in a computer system, membership data is constitutionally protected from mandatory disclosure.
"No constitutional right is absolute, however. The right to maintain membership data in secrecy is not perfectly guaranteed. But the Court reassuringly characterized official demands for membership lists as substantial restraints on freedom of association. As such, courts must strike them down unless they are narrowly tailored and necessary to further a compelling state interest. . . ."
[Essay continues at http://www.naacpvalabamaat50.org]
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98.
This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more. Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law.
"Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75.
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over 75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections, new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy. Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy and data protection ever published.
"FOIA 2006: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, Melissa Ngo, and Mark S. Zaid, editors (EPIC 2007). Price: $50.
This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 23nd edition fully updates the manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. For those who litigate open government cases (or need to learn how to litigate them), this is an essential reference manual.
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in the WSIS process.
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price: $40.
The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students, attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials include the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act.
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering threatens free expression.
EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at:
"EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books
EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act.
Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:
2007-2008 Supreme Court Term Review. Organized by the American
Constitution Society. July 1, 2008, 9am. National Press Club Ballroom,
Washington, DC. For more information:
Privacy Laws & Business 21st Annual International Conference. Value
Privacy, Secure Your Reputation, Reduce Risk. 7-9th July, 2008,
John’s College, Cambridge. For more information:
The 8th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS 2008), 23-25
July, 2008, Leuven, Belgium. For more information:
DHS Public Workshop Data Mining. July 24-25, Washington, DC. For more
The Privacy Symposium - Summer 2008: An Executive Education Program on
Privacy and Data Security Policy and Practice, August 18-21,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. For more information:
Privacy Awareness Week. August 24, 2008. Australia, New Zealand, Hong
Kong, Korea and Canada. For more information:
International Symposium on Data Protecion in Social Networks.
October 13, 2008, Strasbourg. For more information:
Protecting Privacy in a Borderless World. October 15-17, 2008,
Strasbourg. For more information:
Privacy in Social Network Sites Conference October 23-24, 2008.
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of TPM, The Netherlands.
For more information:
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
Back issues are available at:
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information."
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at:
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and expanding wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
If you would like more information on Privacy '08, go online and search for "Privacy 08". You'll find a Privacy08 Cause at Facebook, Privacy08 at Twitter, a Privacy08 Channel on YouTube to come soon, and much more. You can also order caps and t-shirts at CafePress Privacy08.
Start a discussion. Hold a meeting. Be creative. Spread the word. You can donate online at epic.org. Support the campaign.