EPIC Alert 18.14
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 18.14 July 19, 2011
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 US Appeals Court: TSA Violated Federal Law on Body Scanners
 EPIC Testifies in Congress Against Data Retention
 EPIC v.
NSA: FOIA Cybersecurity Lawsuit Goes Forward
 FCC Confirms Google Street View Investigation
 Court-Approved Wiretaps Reach
a New All-Time High
 News in Brief
 EPIC Book Review: "Digital Dead End"
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
Facebook Privacy 2011!
- READ EPIC's complaint to FTC: http://epic.org/redirect/062011FB.html
- WATCH EPIC on ABC Nightline: http://epic.org/redirect/062011FB.html
- SUPPORT EPIC http://www.epic.org/donate/
 US Appeals
Court: TSA Violated Federal Law on Body Scanners
v. DHS, a federal court of appeals ruled July 15 that the
Transportation Security Administration violated federal law by failing
to solicit and consider public comment about its controversial airport
body scanner program. EPIC first brought suit in July 2010,
that that the body scanners violated the Administrative Procedure Act,
the Privacy Act, and the Fourth Amendment, in addition
to other federal
statutory claims. The Court granted EPIC's legal claim under the
Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the
agency failed to fulfill
its duties under the statute.
As the Court explained:
In May 2009 more than 30 organizations, including
EPIC, sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
which they objected to the use of AIT as a primary
of screening passengers. They asked that the TSA cease using AIT
in that capacity pending "a 90-day formal public rulemaking
process." The TSA responded with a letter addressing
the organizations' substantive concerns but ignoring their
request for rulemaking.
Nearly a year later, in April 2010, the EPIC and a slightly
different group of organizations sent the Secretary and her
Privacy Officer a second letter, denominated a
"petitionfor the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule"
pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
S 553(e). They argued the use of AIT for
primary screening violates the Privacy Act; a provision of the
Homeland Security Act requiring
the Chief Privacy Officer upon
the issuance of a new rule to prepare a privacy impact
assessment; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); and
the Fourth Amendment. In May the TSA again responded by letter,
clarifying some factual matters, responding to the
challenges, and taking the position it is not required to
initiate a rulemaking each time it changes screening procedures.
In July, the EPIC, joined by two members of its advisory board
who travel frequently and have been subjected to AIT screening
by the TSA, petitioned this court for review.
In the analysis, the Court went on to say:
The petitioners focus their opening
brief upon their substantive
challenges to the TSA's decision to use AIT for initial
screening. They raise all the legal claims
foreshadowed in their
request for rulemaking, as well as a claim under the Video
Voyeurism Prevention Act. As explained below,
attention is most drawn to their procedural argument that the
TSA should have engaged in notice-and- comment rulemaking.
Rejecting the TSA's several arguments against the rulemaking, the
A construction of S 553(e) that excludes any
petition with a
goal beyond mere process is dubious at best, and the agency
offers no authority for it. . . . Indeed, we would
to find many petitions for rulemaking that do not identify the
substantive outcome the petitioner wants the agency
to reach. . . .
The requirement that a passenger pass through a security
checkpoint is hardly novel, the prohibition against boarding
plane with a weapon or an explosive device even less so. But
this overly abstract account of the change in procedure at the
checkpoint elides the privacy interests at the heart of the
petitioners' concern with AIT. Despite the precautions taken by
TSA, it is clear that by producing an image of the unclothed
passenger, an AIT scanner intrudes upon his or her personal
in a way a magnetometer does not. . . .
For these reasons, the TSA's use of AIT for primary screening
has the hallmark of a substantive
rule and, therefore, unless
the rule comes within some other exception, it should have been
the subject of notice and comment.
. . .
Although the statute, 49 U.S.C. S 44925, does require the TSA to
develop and test advanced screening technology, it does
specifically require the TSA to deploy AIT scanners let alone
use them for primary screening. . . .
The TSA seems to think
it significant that there are no AIT
scanners at some airports and the agency retains the discretion
to stop using the scanners
where they are in place. More clearly
significant is that a passenger is bound to comply with whatever
screening procedure the
TSA is using on the date he is to fly at
the airport from which his flight departs. . . . To be sure, he
can opt for a patdown
but, as the TSA conceded at oral argument,
the agency has not argued that option makes its screening
procedures nonbinding and
we therefore do not consider the
possibility. We are left, then, with the argument that a
passenger is not bound to comply with
the set of choices
presented by the TSA when he arrives at the security checkpoint,
which is absurd.
The court concluded its
analysis of the rulemaking requirement:
In sum, the TSA has advanced no justification for having failed
to conduct a notice-and-comment
rulemaking. We therefore remand
this matter to the agency for further proceedings. Because
vacating the present rule would severely
disrupt an essential
security operation, however, and the rule is, as we explain
below, otherwise lawful, we shall not vacate the
rule, but we do
nonetheless expect the agency to act promptly on remand to cure
the defect in its promulgation.
court dismissed several other statutory claims. In
response to EPIC's claim that the airport body scanners violate
the Fourth Amendment,
which prohibits unreasonable search and
seizure, the court said that "considering the measures taken
by the TSA to safeguard personal
privacy, we hold AIT screening does
not violate the Fourth Amendment."
The court concluded the opinion with the following:
To sum up, first, we grant the petition for review insofar
claims the TSA has not justified its failure to initiate
notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT
scanners for primary screening. None of the exceptions urged by
the TSA justifies its failure to give notice of and receive
upon such a rule, which is legislative and not merely
interpretive, procedural, or a general statement of policy.
Second, we deny
the petition with respect to the petitioners'
statutory arguments and their claim under the Fourth Amendment,
except their claim
under the RFRA, which we dismiss for lack of
standing. Finally, due to the obvious need for the TSA to
continue its airport security
operations without interruption,
we remand the rule to the TSA but do not vacate it, and instruct
the agency promptly to proceed
in a manner consistent with this
As a result of the decision in EPIC v. DHS, the TSA will be required
to set out for the
public the legal basis for the airport screening
program and the procedures it intends to follow. It will then be
required to receive
comments from the public, including from
travelers and experts in such topics as radiation exposure, about
its proposal. Then the
agency will issue a final rule which can then
be challenged and review by the court.
D.C. Circuit Opinion: EPIC v. DHS (July 15,
EPIC: Petition for Review (May 2009)
EPIC: Motion for Emergency Stay of Body Scanner Program (July 2010)
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanners)
EPIC v. DHS Opening Brief (Nov. 2010)
EPIC v. DHS Reply Brief (Jan. 2011)
 EPIC Testifies in Congress Against Data Retention
EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg testified before the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
July 12 hearing to evaluate H.R. 1918, the "Protecting Children From
Internet Pornographers Act of 2011". Rotenberg opposes
provisions of the bill, which would require Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) to retain customer Internet Protocol (IP) addresses
Rotenberg stated that the proposal to retain identifying information
would put "99.9% of Internet users" at risk.
With the increasing
numberof data breach and identity theft cases, Rotenberg said,
cybersecurity best practices now utilize data
minimization rather than
data retention. He argued that retaining IP addresses creates more
data available for hackers to steal,
including the tracking and
targeting of individual users. Rotenberg also pointed out that the
bill "immunizes" ISPs from any liability
for problems in storing or
improperly sharing the information, thereby eliminating incentives to
store the data securely and leaving
customers without means of redress.
Rotenberg pointed out that the current disclosure system for consumer
under the Electronic Communications Privacy act
(ECPA) already provides an effective means for law enforcement to
user information like IP addresses. A law enforcement
agency can request an ISP to retain customer information for 90 days
its request for another 90 days, providing time to obtain a
warrant. Rotenberg also compared H.R. 1918 to a similar European Union
directive that was found unconstitutional in European court.
Furthermore, the bill provides an exception for wireless ISPs.
member Representative John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) commented that
this loophole makes the data retention requirement nearly useless, and
would merely encourage criminals to migrate to wireless service.
Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) also strongly opposed the measure,
stating that ISPs, not the government, should determine data retention
procedures, and that the bill "needs a lot of fixing up .
. . before
it's ready for prime time." Rotenberg emphasized that the "seriousness
of the crime, and the importance of prosecuting
offenders, is beyond
doubt," but that H.R. 1918 is not the solution. Representative Robert
Scott (D-VA) also opposed the bill because
he said it would contribute
to the already extensive backlog in computer forensic investigations,
and that simply compiling more
data is not the solution to investigation
EPIC's Rotenberg and Rep. Conyers agreed that the bill would make the
available for any type of law enforcement, not just child
pornography investigations. Rotenberg pointed out that narrowing the
to those investigations would be a start in improving its scope
and security. Rep. Conyers observed that if the bill were serious
pursuing child pornographers, it would both close the wireless loophole
and limit its scope: The bill currently allows IP
data to be accessed
with an administrative subpoena, allowing FBI agents to obtain it
without a warrant or judicial supervision.
voiced his dissent by observing "this bill runs roughshod over the
privacy rights of millions."
Before the US House Judiciary Committee (July 12, 2011)
House Judiciary Committee: Hearing Information (July 12, 2011)
Library of Congress: H.R. 1981
EPIC - Data Retention
 EPIC v. NSA: FOIA Cybersecurity Lawsuit Goes Forward
A District of Columbia federal court ordered EPIC's Freedom
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Security Agency
(NSA) to proceed, holding that EPIC can "pursue its claim against the
wrongfully withholding an agency record in its possession."
EPIC's suit seeks disclosure of National Security Presidential
54 - the document providing the legal basis for the NSA's
cybersecurity activities. The NSA failed to disclose the document in
to EPIC's original 2009 FOIA request, instead forwarding the
request to the National Security Council. The Court held that the
is not subject to FOIA, but that the NSA's transfer of EPIC's
request does not absolve the agency of its responsibility to respond
In January 2008, President George W. Bush issued National Security
Presidential Directive 54, which grants the NSA broad
the security of American computer networks. The Directive created the
Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative,
multi-year plan that lays out twelve steps to securing the federal
government's cyber networks." The Directive was
not released to the
public, but the White House did publish a description of the Initiative
while the EPIC case was pending in March
2010. The Initiative covers a
wide range of government activity, from cyber-education to intrusion
detection. However, the text of
the underlying legal authority for
cybersecurity still remains undisclosed.
EPIC submitted a FOIA request to the NSA in June 2009,
copies of the Directive, the Initiative and privacy policies related
to either. The request specifically asked for the
text of the National
Security Presidential Directive 54; the full text of the Initiative,
including unreported sections and any executing
to the agencies in charge of its implementation; and any privacy
policies related to the Directive or the Initiative,
contracts or other documents describing privacy policies with
information shared with private contractors to facilitate
In October 2009, the NSA identified three relevant documents to the
EPIC FOIA request, but refused to disclose any
of them. One document,
relating to the text of the Directive, was not disclosed because the
record "did not originate with" the NSA,
and "has been referred to the
National Security Council for review and direct response to" EPIC. Two
other documents relating to
privacy policies were withheld allegedly
pursuant to a FOIA exemption. In November 2009, EPIC appealed the NSA's
NSA acknowledged receipt of this appeal in December,
but failed to provide any further communication.
EPIC subsequently filed a
lawsuit against the NSA and the National
Security Council to compel the disclosure of documents relating to the
Directive. One of
EPIC's counts against the NSA included an
Administrative Procedures Act violation because the NSA referred EPIC's
FOIA request to
the Council, which is not subject to FOIA. In response,
the NSA and the National Security Council filed a partial motion to
the alleged FOIA violation against the Council and the alleged
APA violation against the NSA. On July 7, the court granted the motion
and held that EPIC can still "pursue its claim against the NSA for
wrongfully withholding an agency record in its possession." While
Council is not subject to FOIA, the NSA's transfer of EPIC's request
does not absolve the agency of its responsibility to respond
The FOIA lawsuit against the NSA is ongoing.
EPIC: EPIC v. NSA (District Court Opinion) (July 7, 2011)
EPIC: EPIC v. NSA (Public Disclosure of NSA's Cybersecurity Authority)
 FCC Confirms Google Street View Investigation
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski
has confirmed that the Commission is investigating the legality
Google's "collateral" data capture during its Street View deployment.
Writing in response to letters from Congressmen Tom Graves
Rogers (R-AL), John Barrow (D-GA), and Steve Scalise (R-LA),
Genachowski said, "the [Enforcement] Bureau's inquiry seeks
determine whether Google's actions were inconsistent with any rule or
law within the Commission's jurisdiction." Genachowski declined
provide specifics on the scope or depth of the inquiry, though there
is growing frustration in Congress about the perceived slowness
Google Street View is a Web application that provides views of streets
and locations throughout the world
from multiple perspectives, with
images taken from specially adapted vehicles. For three years and in
thirty countries, Google's
Street View cars also collected and retained
data, including the content of personal emails, from wireless routers
located in private
homes and businesses.
Several countries, including the UK, Germany, Spain, and Canada, have
conducted investigations and determined
that Google violated national
privacy laws. In 2010, EPIC filed a complaint with the FCC, urging it
to open an investigation into
Google Street View. The complaint stated
that Google's collection of private wireless access (Wi-Fi)
communications as a part of
the program could constitute a violation of
the US Wiretap Act.
On June 29, U.S. District Judge James Ware rejected Google's motion
dismiss the case, finding that Google's "purposeful and secretive"
collection of Wi-Fi data as part of its Street View activities
in fact constitute illegal wiretapping. Google has subsequently asked
to file an interlocutory appeal. Earlier in 2011, EPIC
had filed a
"friend of the court" brief in the case, detailing the manner in
which Google's Street View activities were potential
both federal and state wiretap statutes.
FCC Chairman: Response to Reps. Rogers, Barrow et al. (June 22, 2011)
Reps. Rogers, Barrow, et al.: Letter to FCC on Street View (Feb. 2011)
EPIC: Google Street View Complaint (May 18, 2010)
EPIC: Google Street View Amicus (April 11, 2011)
In re: Google Street View: Denial of Motion to Dismiss (June 29, 2011)
EPIC: Google Street View
 Court-Approved Wiretaps Reach a New All-Time High
According to the newly released 2010 Wiretap Report, federal and
state courts issued 3,194 orders for the interception of wire,
or electronic communications in 2010, up 34% from 2009. 2010 is the
third consecutive year in which the number of both federal
authorized wiretaps increased. Of the reported wiretaps in 2010,
federal judges authorized 1,207 and state judges authorized
California, New York and New Jersey had the largest number of
applications for state authorization, accounting for 68% of
applications approved by state judges. 96% of authorized wiretaps in
2010 were for portable devices like cell phones and digital
Only one request for wiretap authorization was denied.
The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted
rose from 113 per wiretap order in 2009 to 118 per wiretap order in
2010. Only 26% of intercepted communications in 2010 were
The report also indicated that there were six cases
in which law enforcement encountered encryption during a state wiretap;
officials were able to obtain the plaintext of the encrypted
communications. In 2010, each authorized wiretap was in operation for
an average of 40 days, down two days from the previous year. The
average cost for intercept devices in 2010 was $50,085, down 4%
2009. At the federal level, the average cost for wiretaps for which
expenses were reported was up 2% from 2009, to $63,566.
The 2010 Wiretap Report does not include interceptions regulated by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or interceptions approved
President outside the exclusive authority of the federal wiretap law or
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In April 2011, the
Department of Justice reported to the Senate that the government
applied for 1,579 authorizations to conduct electronic
physical search pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Of those applications, the government withdrew
five, and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court denied zero.
The Wiretap Report is required by law. Title 18, Section 2519
United States Code mandates that each federal and state judge file a
written report to the Administrative Office of the United
every time an application for a wiretap authorization is filed. The
Administrative Office is then required to submit
an annual report to
Congress on all wiretap activity. In 2010, EPIC submitted comments to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
accountability. In 2011, EPIC submitted a "friend of the court" brief
for a federal court case considering
the Federal Wiretap Act.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts: 2010 Wiretap Report
US Office of the Law: Law Requiring the Wiretap Report
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
EPIC: Title III Wiretap Orders 1968-2010
EPIC: Comments to FISA Court on Proposed Ruling (Oct. 2010)
US DoJ: Letter to Sen. Reid re: FISA
 News in Brief
European Parliament Takes Stance Against Airport Body Scanners
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution establishing strict
safeguards for all airport body scanners used within the European Union.
The Parliament also cited concerns to be addressed before
technology is implemented, including health risks, human rights, and
data protection. The resolution requires European Union
only to "deploy technology which is the least harmful for human
health"; that only stick figures, rather than body
images, be captured
and that those images immediately be destroyed; and that the monitors'
safety and efficacy be periodically reevaluated.
Parliament intends to prohibit the use of backscatterx-ray devices,
which have raised several health concerns among
radiation experts. EPIC
is currently pursuing a lawsuit to suspend the use of body scanners in
the US, citing several federal laws
and the US Constitution. EPIC has
called the US airport body scanner program "invasive, ineffective, and
EUP: Resolution: Aviation Security
& Security Scanners (July 6, 2011)
EUP: Press Release on Airport Body Scanner Safeguards (July 6, 2011)
European Commission: Resolution on Body Scanners at EU Airports
EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
CA Governor Signs Library-Backed California Public Records Act
On July 12, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law an
amendment to the California Public Records Act that protects library
patron privacy. The bill establishes that library patron records
library thatretrieves any public support "shall remain confidential
and shall not be disclosed" by the library, or by a private
maintains or stores records on behalf of the library, to "any person,
local agency, or state agency except" in a few circumstances.
Permissible exceptions include appropriate administrative use by
library personnel, with the consent of the individual, by court
order, or for statistical purposes. The bill sets out an expansive
definition of patron records. The bill was drafted by EPIC Board
Member Mary Minow and sponsored by California Representative
State of California: Amendment to Senate Bill No. 445
EPIC: Privacy and Public Records
Open Government Groups Petition Senate over Defense Bill FOIA Exemption
A coalition, led by OpenTheGovernment.org, is urging
the Senate to
oppose two new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The
provisions contained in the spending measure would allow the US
government to exempt from FOIA requests data about US critical
infrastructure and flight information. Concurrently, the Senate Armed
Services Committee voted 17-9 to keep its deliberations on the bill
closed to the public.
US Senate: National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Senate Armed Services Committee: Roll Call Votes (June 21, 2011)
OpenTheGovernment.org: Fight for Narrow Info Disclosure Provisions
EPIC: Open Government
 EPIC Book Review: "Digital Dead End"
"Digital Dead End: Fighting for Social Justice in the Information Age,"
In her memoir, "Digital Dead End," "cyberfeminist" Virginia Eubanks
argues that technology activists should expand their focus beyond
concerns about the "digital divide" - a skills gap between those who
are computer literate and those who are not. For 15 years,
a social justice organization out of the YWCA in Troy, NY, aiming to
empower local residents by educating them about
The experience transformed her worldview, and in unexpected ways.
Eubanks' conclusions are surprising and
insightful. As she puts it,
"My own understandings of high-tech equity had been so colonized by
digital divide theory that I couldn't
hear past my own assumptions."
Eubanks now believes that characterizing some as "haves" and others as
"have-nots" in the context
of computer literacy is overly simplistic.
She also suggests that the residents of Troy had particularly rational
reasons for steering
clear of computing technology, which she terms
Chief among these reasons is that her socioeconomically marginalized
research subjects were acutely aware of privacy risks. Eligible
recipients of government aid understand that "dozens of widely
and largely invisible people and agencies" are charged with
accessing and monitoring their personally identifiable information.
access to accurate information is scary enough. Social
service systems expose recipients' information to a range of other
as well, including drastic penalties for data errors that are
beyond their control. From management information systems and closed-
circuit televisions to electronic benefits transfer cards and biometric
fingerprinting data, their lives are stripped bare, measured,
locked down. In this context, Eubanks' alternative account for the gap
in computer literacy represents a rational explanation
that does not
rely on problematic assumptions about class.
Despite her original project design, Eubanks never shies away from such
counterintuitive findings. What unites the overwhelming majority of
Americans, it turns out, is not a yearning for computer literacy,
rather for electronic privacy. Regardless of income, all of us have a
deep and abiding interest in staving off government surveillance.
Eubank's story demonstrates is how powerful such a common cause might
be in the hands of activists who listen.
-- Conor Kennedy
"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark
S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75
Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most
comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access
This updated version includes new material regarding President Obama's
2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's
March 2009 memo
on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The
standard reference work includes in-depth
analysis of litigation under:
the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated
2010 volume is the
25th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists
and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel
J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005).
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
law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more.
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive
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
75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections,
new challenges, and important issues and events relating
Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy
and data protection ever published.
"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).
reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals
future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for
individuals and organizations that wish to become more
involved in the
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International
and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price:
The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk
Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource
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 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:
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
Privacy Platform Meeting on The Transatlantic Dimension of Data
Protection. Brussels, Belgium, 7 September 2011. For More Information:
EPIC Public Voice Conference. Mexico City, Mexico, 31 October 2011. For
More Information: http://www.thepublicvoice.org/.
33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners (ICDPPC 2011). Mexico City, Mexico, 2-3 November 2011.
For more information: http://www.privacyconference2011.org/.
8th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records.
Sponsored by the College of William and Mary School of Law.
VA, 3-4 November 2011. For More Information:
Computers, Privacy, & Data Protection 2012: European Data Protection:
Coming of Age. Brussels, Belgium, 25-27 January 2012, Call
Abstracts Deadline 1 June 2011. For More Information:
Join EPIC on Facebook
Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook
Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts.
Stay up to date with EPIC's events.
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
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
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).
Donate to EPIC
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.
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
Back issues are available at:
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 18.14 ------------------------