WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2012 >> [2012] EPICAlert 1

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

EPIC Alert 19.01 [2012] EPICAlert 1

EPIC Alert 19.01

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 19.01 January 18, 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] EPIC: FOIA Docs Reveal DHS Monitoring of Online Political Dissent [2] EPIC Submits Comments, Letter to FTC re: Facebook [3] EPIC Presses FTC to Investigate Google Search Changes [4] EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Shed Light on Google - NSA Agreement [5] Justice Dept. Rejects S. Carolina's New Voter Photo-ID Law [6] News in Brief [7] Book Review: 'I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did' [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Support International Privacy Day, January 28! - VISIT the International Privacy Day Facebook Page: - SIGN the Madrid Declaration: - SUPPORT EPIC: ======================================================================= [1] EPIC: FOIA Docs Reveal DHS Monitoring of Online Political Dissent ======================================================================= As the result of EPIC v. DHS, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained nearly 300 pages of documents detailing a Department of Homeland Security social media surveillance program. The documents include contracts and statements of work with General Dynamics for 24/7/365 media and social network monitoring and periodic reports to DHS. As part of this contract, General Dynamics was tasked with monitoring media and social networking sites and providing immediate, daily, and weekly summaries to Homeland Security. The FOIA documents reveal that Homeland Security is tracking criticism and dissent, stating that the contractor should monitor and summarize media stories that "reflect adversely" on DHS or the US government. DHS also says that the agency is attempting to "capture public reaction to major government proposals." The agency instructs the contractor to generate "reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS." One tracking report held up by the DHS as a example of what a report should include - "Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish, MI" - summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters on popular social networking sites and news media comment boards. EPIC sent a Freedom of Information Act request for these documents in April 2011 and filed suit against the agency in December. EPIC: Freedom of Information Act Request to DHS (April 12, 2011) EPIC: FOIA Documents Received from DHS (Jan. 12, 2012) NY Times: 'Federal Security Program Monitored Public Opinion' (Jan. 13, 2012) monitored-public-opinion.html?_r=2 ComputerWorld: 'DHS Media Monitoring Could Chill Public Dissent, EPIC Warns' (Jan. 16, 2012) monitoring_could_chill_public_dissent_EPIC_warns?taxonomyId=84 EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Media Monitoring) ======================================================================= [2] EPIC Submits Comments, Letter to FTC re: Facebook ======================================================================= EPIC submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission December 27 over the agency's proposed settlement with Facebook. The settlement follows from complaints filed by EPIC and other consumer and privacy organizations in 2009 and 2010 over Facebook's decision to change its users' privacy settings in such a way that made users' personal information more widely available to the public and to Facebook's business partners. EPIC's comments state that the settlement is "insufficient to address the concerns originally identified by EPIC and the consumer coalition, as well as those findings established by the Commission." The initial FTC settlement contains an eight-count complaint against Facebook, and includes allegations that the company violated the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on "unfair and deceptive" trade practices by misleading users about the extent to which they could control access to their personal information, and the extent to which applications and advertisers had access to that same information. Specifically, the proposed consent order prohibits Facebook from misrepresenting the privacy or security of users' personal information, and requires the company to (1) Obtain users' affirmative, express consent before sharing their information in a way that exceeds their privacy settings; (2) Establish a comprehensive privacy program; (3) Ensure that personal information cannot be accessed by Facebook after a user deletes his or her account; and (4) Submit to independent privacy audits for 20 years. EPIC's comments reiterate suggestions provided during the "Fix Facebook Privacy Fail" campaign, which was conducted to increase public participation in and thus strengthen the proposed settlement. EPIC urged the Commission to require Facebook to (1) Restore user privacy controls to their 2009 settings, before the initiation of the "unfair and deceptive practices" addressed in the complaint; (2) Allow users access to all of the data that Facebook keeps about them; (3) Cease creating facial recognition profiles without users' affirmative consent; (4) Make Facebook's privacy audits publicly available to the greatest extent possible; and (5) Cease secret post-logout tracking of users across Web sites. In both the comments and in a separate letter to the Commission, EPIC drew particular attention to Facebook's Timeline feature. EPIC's letter requests that the Commission determine whether the recent changes Facebook has made to user profiles via Timeline are consistent with the terms of the proposed settlement. EPIC's letter states, "With Timeline, Facebook has once again taken control over the user's data from the user and has now made information that was essentially archived and inaccessible widely available without the consent of the user." EPIC: Comments on Facebook-FTC Settlement (Dec. 23, 2011) EPIC: Letter to FTC re: Timeline (Dec. 27, 2011) FTC: Complaint Against Facebook (Nov. 29, 2011) FTC: Proposed Settlement with Facebook (November 29, 2011) ZDNet: 'EPIC: Facebook Timeline changes users' privacy settings' (Jan. 10, 2012) changes-users-privacy-settings/7103 EPIC: FTC Facebook Settlement EPIC: Facebook Privacy EPIC: Social Networking Privacy ======================================================================= [3] EPIC Presses FTC to Investigate Google Search Changes ======================================================================= EPIC has sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, requesting that the agency investigate competition and privacy issues surrounding Google's recent changes to Google Search. Google announced January 10 that Google Search results would now include users' personal data gathered from Google+, including photos, posts, and business pages of users and their contacts. EPIC's letter states, "Google's business practices raise concerns related to both competition and the implementation of the Commission's consent order," referring to the FTC settlement with Google that establishes new privacy safeguards for users of all Google products and services and subjects the company to regular privacy audits. EPIC argues that "[i]ncorporating results from Google+ into ordinary search results allows Google to promote its own social network by leveraging its dominance in the search engine market." Antitrust experts, such as Benjamin Edelman of the Harvard University Business School, have also stated that "Google has repeatedly crossed the line, and antitrust enforcement action is required to put a stop to these practices." Edelman notes that "the top-most result [of a Google search] enjoys 34%+ of all clicks - so when Google takes that position for itself, there's far less for everyone else." Furthermore, EPIC notes, "Although data from a user's Google+ contacts is not displayed publicly, Google's changes make the personal data of users more accessible." Google's changes to Google Search come at a time when Congress and the Federal Trade Commission have indicated they plan to scrutinize the company's competitive activities more closely. In September 2011 the Senate held a hearing on Google's use of its search market dominance to suppress competition. The FTC is also investigating Google for possible antitrust violations. EPIC has actively engaged the FTC on matters involving Google. EPIC's 2010 complaint over Google's Buzz social networking service provided the basis for the Commission's investigation and the subsequent settlement that dismantled Buzz and required Google to submit to 20 years of government privacy oversight. Also in September 2011, EPIC asked the FTC to investigate Google's use of search engine criteria to give preferential treatment to the company's own YouTube videos on "privacy." EPIC: Letter to FTC re: Google Search (Jan. 12, 2012) Google: Announcement: "Google Search Plus Your World" (Jan. 10, 2012) LA Times: 'Google launches ad campaign to ease privacy concerns' (Jan 17, 2012), 0,3294053.story National Journal: 'EPIC Urges FTC Probe Of Google Personalized Search' (Jan. 12, 2012) probe-of-google.php FTC: Google Buzz settlement (Mar. 30, 2011) EPIC: in re: Google Buzz Senate Judiciary Committee: "The Power of Google" (Sept. 21, 2011) EPIC: Federal Trade Commission ====================================================================== [4] EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Shed Light on Google - NSA Agreement ======================================================================= EPIC has filed the opening brief in EPIC v. NSA. The brief challenges the National Security Agency's response to EPIC's Freedom of Information Act over the Agency's relationship with Google. Contrary to the Freedom of Information Act, the NSA did not perform a search for responsive documents, claiming instead that it could "neither confirm or deny" the existence of any responsive documents. On January 12, 2010, Google announced that it had suffered a "highly sophisticated and coordinated" cyberattack originating from China. The attackers planted malicious code in Google's corporate networks, resulting in the theft of Google's intellectual property, and at least the attempted access of the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. On February 4, 2010, The Washington Post reported that Google had contacted the National Security Agency about Google's security practices in the aftermath of the attack. According to the Washington Post, the conversations focused on how Google could "[build] a better defense of [its] networks." The Wall Street Journal also reported that within 24 hours of Google's announcement of the attack, the NSA general counsel had drafted a "cooperative research and development agreement" that authorized the Agency to "examine some of the data related to the intrusion into Google's systems." The day after the attack, Google changed a key traffic setting, causing all subsequent traffic to and from its electronic mail servers to be encrypted by default. EPIC had highlighted the need for encryption in Google's cloud services in a March 2009 letter to the Federal Trade Commission. Later in 2009, a group of 38 researchers and academics in the fields of computer science, information security, and privacy law published an open letter to Google stating encryption was necessary. Google ignored both of these warnings. The NSA's response to EPIC's brief is due on February 2, 2012. Oral argument will be held at the DC Circuit Court on March 20, 2012. EPIC v. NSA: Google / NSA Relationship EPIC: Opening Brief in EPIC v. NSA (Jan 3, 2012) CloudPrivacy: Open Letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt (June 1, 2009) EPIC: In re: Google, Inc. and Cloud Computing Services (Mar. 17, 2009) EPIC: Google/NSA Relationship Google: A New Approach to China (Jan. 12, 2010) New York Times: Article on Google/NSA (Feb. 4, 2010) Washington Post: Article on Google/NSA (Feb. 4, 2010) Wall Street Journal: Article on Google/NSA (Feb. 4, 2010) ======================================================================= [5] Justice Dept. Rejects S. Carolina's New Voter Photo-ID Law ======================================================================= In a December 23 letter to South Carolina state officials, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights division rejected the state's new government-issued photo ID requirement for voters, claiming that the law violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act provides legal protection for minority voters who live in states and localities with a history of targeting minority groups for voter suppression; to prevent reoccurrances, the Justice Department must approve any proposed changes to election or polling-place practices. The agency's letter states that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that "the proposed changes have neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group." Any state or locality whose request has been denied has the right to challenge the ruling in federal court. Before the passage of the 2011 law, South Carolina had permitted several forms of voter identification, including a no-cost, no-photo voter registration certificate, valid South Carolina driver's license, or other state-issued photo ID card. The 2011 law mandates that ". . . When a person presents himself to vote, he shall produce a valid and current: South Carolina driver's license; or other form of identification containing a photograph issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles; or passport; or military identification containing a photograph issued by the federal government; or South Carolina voter registration card containing a photograph of the voter. . ." As of January 2011, only two states, Georgia and Indiana, had enacted restrictive voter photo-ID laws. During 2011, however, Kansas, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Texas, and Mississippi passed and/or enacted similar laws. Mississippi's initiative will need legislative approval before going into effect. In 2007, EPIC submitted a "friend of the court" brief in Crawford v. Marion County, a case arising from the Indiana voter photo ID requirement. EPIC argued that voter privacy and election integrity are threatened by the adoption of laws that require voters to hold one of a narrow set of government-issued photo identification documents. US DoJ: Letter to SC Assistant Attorney General (Dec. 23, 2011) EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy State of South Carolina: New Voter ID Law of 2011 EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County ======================================================================= [6] News in Brief ======================================================================= DHS Memo Reveals Plan to Impose 'Secure Communities' on All States According to a recently available draft memo originally issued in October 2010, the Department of Homeland Security intends to require that all US states comply with the Agency's "Secure Communities" program by 2013. "Secure Communities" is a DHS program operated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, and to date has no legislative mandate. Rather, Secure Communities relies on the Immigration and Nationality Act for definitions and authorities to train law enforcement in the performance of immigration functions. The program facilitates local and state law enforcement participation via the sharing of biometric information obtained from individuals who come into contact with police. In June 2011, California legislators urged Governor Jerry Brown to suspend the state's participation in Secure Communities, citing a "crisis of confidence" in the program. California lawmakers identified numerous risks raised by the program and noted "victims of domestic violence had been [wrongfully] placed into deportation proceedings as the result of Secure Communities when they simply called the police for help." Previously, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts had also ended their participation in the program. DHS: Draft Memo on Mandatory "Secure Communities" (Oct. 2010) US Dept. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities EPIC: Secure Communities State of IL: Letter to DHS on Secure Communities (May 4, 2011) State of NY: Letter to DHS on Secure Communities (June 1, 2011) State of MA: Letter to DHS on Secure Communities (June 3, 2011) Federal Court Revives Suit Over NSA Dragnet Surveillance The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently revived Jewel v. NSA, a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's use of the nation's largest telecommunication providers to conduct suspicionless surveillance of Americans. The three-judge panel reversed a lower court decision that the challengers claimed lacked constitutional standing; the case will now return to the court for a decision on its merits. In a related case, Hepting v. AT&T, the same three-judge panel dismissed a suit against the telecommunications provider, and upheld the "retroactive immunity" provision granted by Congress in 2008. In 2007, EPIC, in cooperation with the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the plaintiffs, whose cases at the time were combined under Hepting v. AT&T. EPIC's brief argued that constitutional privacy violations are sufficient to establish standing, and that the state secrets doctrine should not bar adjudication. US Ninth Circuit Court: Opinion in Jewel v. NSA (Dec. 29, 2011) US Ninth Circuit Court: Opinion in Hepting v. AT&T (Dec. 29, 2011) EPIC: Hepting v. AT&T EPIC: Friend of the Court Brief in Hepting v. AT&T (May 2007) EPIC: NSA Warrantless Surveillance Privacy Group Launches Online Consumer Complaint Center The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has launched an interactive online complaint center designed "to serve as a clearinghouse for consumer privacy complaints." The online complaint center was inspired by the 2009 KnowPrivacy study conducted by graduate students at the UC- Berkeley School of Information. The study discovered that although consumers are concerned about the collection of their personal information, many do not know how or where to voice their concerns and complaints. PRC states that the goals of the online complaint center are to "empower consumers" and "educate the public policy process." Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: File a Complaint Privacy Rights Clearinghouse PRC: Complaint Center Announcement (Jan. 3, 2012) J. Gomez, T. Pinnick, and A. Soltani: "KnowPrivacy" (June 1, 2009) ======================================================================= [7] Book Review: 'I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did' ======================================================================= "I Know Who You Are and Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy," Lori Andrews By now you've probably heard the adage that Facebook, with a population of more than 750 million users, is the third largest nation on earth. Lori Andrews, author of "I Know Who You Are and I Saw What you Did," views "Facebook Nation" as the worst possible conglomeration of oligarchy and surveillance state. According to Andrews, Facebook, the neighboring social-network satellite nations of Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace, and Google+, and mysterious non-state kingmakers like data aggregation firms and behavioral marketers, are increasingly stripping us of our choices, identity, and humanity, both on- and offline. Perhaps you could equate Facebook with another nation in transition: China. Facebook, like China, has with a young, burgeoning population perpetually demanding more goods; an infrastructure that constantly grows and changes without input from its citizens; a political system controlled by a secretive elite with uniform views and a vast commercial-industrial base, and an uninterested judiciary. Facebook's economic policies, like China's, appear to be based on the premise that if you allow your citizens the ability to acquire "nice stuff," they'll forget that they're being endangered, exploited, spied on and silenced. But China has a constitution, which it at least nominally follows. Facebook's Constitution is its Privacy Policy, a 13+ page document that all Facebook users must agree to before they join the service. Only a minute percentage of users probably read the entire document, and that's most likely just fine with Facebook's national leaders. Facebook's Privacy Policy technically allows users to opt out of certain Web site features. But Facebook - along with many other Web sites and ISPs - simultaneously sells your data to shadowy "data aggregators" that have no privacy policies and provide users with no way to opt out. What's happening to your aggregated data, your "shadow self", out there? According to Andrews, mostly it's being used to make money for companies. Meanwhile, it can also be misused, misconstrued, falsified, or otherwise used against you. You are being harvested for your digital parts without your knowledge or consent, and everyone, from employers to credit bureaus to jealous spouses to the Department of Homeland Security, can have access to it, for a price. So what are we to do, other than remove ourselves from the Internet entirely - a feat that by now is both nearly impossible and undesirable? Are we victims of our own desire for more and more "free" content, meekly succumbing to the effects of corporate greed and governmental overreach? No, says Andrews. If we are Internet citizens, then we should remake social networks into the citizen-run democracies they were originally intended to be by creating a "Social Network Constitution." "Our Social Network Constitution would ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to connect and freely associate without discrimination," Andrews states. "It will give individuals control over their information, place, feelings, and image. It will ensure that the judicial system is able to fairly and appropriately administer justice. And, built into our Constitution, will be a mechanism protecting those rights." Not only will the Social Network Constitution liberate us online, Andrews contends, but the positive effects will percolate into our physical lives, just as all aspects of the online and physical worlds are becoming more and more interconnected. Sounds great, doesn't it? But after 180+ pages of horrifying her readers with nonstop examples of present-day abuses of online privacy, and their consequences, Andrews' last chapter, "Slouching Towards a Constitution," comes across as tepid and a little unrealistic. Andrews' arguments don't prove that any coalition of Netizens or privacy activists can untangle Internet users from the corporate flytraps she depicts as being nearly omnipresent and omnipotent. "Every democratic nation has governing principles about what rights its citizens have over property, privacy, life and liberty," she says. "The citizens of Facebook Nation deserve no less." Perhaps we do. But this book may not be a sufficiently clear and galvanizing path to social- network liberation. -- EC Rosenberg ================================ EPIC Publications: "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by Harry A. 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 laws. 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). 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. ================================ "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, and constitutional values can be ordered at: EPIC Bookstore ================================ 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: ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= Computers, Privacy, & Data Protection 2012: European Data Protection: Coming of Age, Brussels, Belgium, 25-27 January 2012. For More Information: Computers, Privacy, & Data Protection 2012: EPIC International Champion of Freedom Awards, Brussels, Belgium, 26 January 2012. For More Information: html#GH2-18epic. Internet Data Privacy Colloquium, 2012: Dialogue on Diversity, Washington, DC, 26 January 2012. For More Information: http://www. Council of Europe Privacy Convention, Brussels, Belgium, 27 January 2012. For More Information: of-europe-privacy-.html. Platts Smart Grid Data Privacy Symposium. Las Vegas, NV, 16-17 February 2012. For More Information: 2012/pc217/index. ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET. Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC. ======================================================================= Privacy Policy ======================================================================= 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." ======================================================================= About EPIC ======================================================================= 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 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. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= 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 19.01 ------------------------

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback