EPIC Alert 19.12
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 19.12 July 3, 2012
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 High Court Dismisses Challenge to Congress's Ability to Define Harm
 EPIC Calls for Suspension of DHS "Risk-based"
 House Panel Votes to Renew Surveillance Law Without New Safeguards
 EPIC Calls On FTC to Investigate Facebook
 Senate Judiciary Holds Hearing on Voter Suppression
 EPIC in the News
 Book Review: 'Confront and Conceal'
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
 High Court Dismisses
Challenge to Congress's Ability to Define Harm
On the final
day of the 2011-2012 term, the US Supreme Court dismissed
the case First American v Edwards, a challenge to Congress's ability to
define harm, and leaving intact the earlier decision of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The case had been identified by some
commentators as an important "sleeper case" for this term, in part
because of the potential impact on various consumer protection
The question before the Court was whether the plaintiffs had "standing"
under Article III of the US Constitution to bring a claim against
defendant First American Financial Corp. for violation of their rights
under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA). The issue of
"standing" is important to the enforcement of consumer protection and
privacy laws, and the
earlier appeals court decision made clear that if
Congress defines the consumer injury, then no further evidence is
"Standing" is a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs must clear to have
the underlying merits of their claims decided by a federal
Ninth Circuit Court ruled that "[t]he injury required by Article III
can exist solely by virtue of statutes creating
legal rights, the
invasion of which creates standing." Thus, according to the lower
court, the plaintiffs in First American needed
only to establish that
their rights to conflict-free title services under RESPA were violated
to establish standing.
First American subsequently petitioned for Supreme Court
review, which the Court granted in June 2011. In the June 28 order
the writ "as improvidently granted," however, the Court
made clear that a hearing should not have been granted and that the
court had reached the correct outcome.
EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in First American v. Edwards
after several prominent
Internet companies, including Facebook,
LinkedIn, and Zynga filed a brief urging reversal of the lower court's
opinion. EPIC argued
that effective enforcement of privacy and other
consumer protection laws depends on Congress's ability to define harm
statutory rights. EPIC's brief also stated that emerging
business models "pose a particular threat to individual privacy," and
that Congress "must maintain the power to define" and provide remedies
for privacy injuries.
US Supreme Court: Order Dismissing
First American v. Edwards
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in First American v. Edwards
EPIC: First American v. Edwards
 EPIC Calls for Suspension of DHS "Risk-based" Profiling
EPIC has submitted comments to Customs and Border
Protection, a federal
law-enforcement component of the Department of Homeland Security,
urging it to suspend the Automated Targeting
System. Although ATS was
initially created to screen shipping cargo, the agency now uses the
system to monitor individuals, thereby
profiles on Americans who are not suspected of any crime. An
unfavorable "risk-based" evaluation by
ATS can subject individuals
to investigation, government surveillance, and denial of the right to
travel. Meanwhile, DHS has proposed
to exempt the ATS database from
certain Privacy Act provisions.
The Automated Targeting System's evaluation applies both to travelers
and to individuals that the agency believes "may pose a threat to the
United States," including those who have never "been previously
associated with a law enforcement action or otherwise [been] noted as
a person of concern to law enforcement." CBP uses other government
agencies and third-party data aggregators to collect personally
identifiable information such as social security numbers, addresses,
and birthdates; personal data including race, ethnicity, religious and
political views; and even information relating to one's
"sex life." The
ATS algorithm then "matches" this information to "patterns of
suspicious activity" and individuals are scored based
perceived risk to national security.
EPIC's comments note that the ATS Privacy Impact Assessment does not
privacy risks caused by the system, but rather reveals
numerous privacy risks, thus underscoring the doubts surrounding ATS
Act exemptions. Because the ATS establishes secret profiles on
individuals absent Privacy Act safeguards and is contrary to the
purpose of the federal Privacy Act, EPIC's comments strongly recommend
that the agency suspend the program. If, however, CBP
continues to use
the program, EPIC has urged the CBP to revise the Privacy Act notice
for the Automated Targeting System to: "1)
judicially enforceable rights of access and correction; 2) limit the
collection and distribution of information
to only those necessary
for the screening process, and 3) substantially limit the routine
uses of information."
EPIC also argued
that because ATS collects certain categories of
sensitive data, a "distinct possibility" exists that travelers will be
based upon race, political ideology, religious or
sexual beliefs, among other personal matters."
In detailed comments to DHS in
2007, EPIC opposed the use of "risk-
based" profiles. EPIC's 2007 comments stated that the system's broad
Privacy Act exemptions
"contravene the intent of the Privacy Act of
1974" and that "more access and transparency is needed [because] the
and effectiveness are in question." In 2006, EPIC
led a coalition in condemning the "risk-based" assessment of US
and the coalition urged the agency to suspend the
program and to fully enforce Privacy Act obligations. EPIC has also
before Congress on the inherent problems in passenger
profiling systems like ATS.
EPIC: Comments to CPB on Automated Targeting
System (Jun. 21, 2012)
DHS: Privacy Impact Assessment for ATS (Jun. 1, 2012)
Federal Register: DHS Proposed Rule on ATS (May 23, 2012)
EPIC: Comments on Proposed ATS Privacy Act Exemptions (2007)
EPIC et al.: Comments on Proposed ATS Privacy Act Exemptions (2006)
EPIC: Congressional Statement on Privacy and Terrorism (2003)
EPIC: Congressional Statement on Traveler Watchlists (2008)
EPIC: The Privacy Act of 1974
EPIC: Automated Targeting System
EPIC: Passenger Profiling
EPIC: Air Travel Privacy
 House Panel Votes to Renew Surveillance Law Without
The US House Judiciary Committee has voted
to reauthorize the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (HR 5949) through
the end of 2017 without any changes.
Amendments to improve FISA
accountability introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Jerold Nadler
(D-NY), Bobby Scott (D-VA), and
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), were all
defeated. The bill will now head to the full House of Representatives
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 authorizes mass surveillance of foreign
communications, including the communications of US persons,
individualized suspicion. In addition, the Act does not provide for
adequate public oversight. Currently, the law provides
information to Congress or the public about government surveillance
activities under the FISA.
In the Senate, Ron Wyden
(D-OR) and others have questioned the
specifics of the Act's renewal. In a recent report by the Senate
Wyden and Mark Udall (D-CO) stated that the
FISA contains a loophole that allows the government "to circumvent
protections and search for the communications of a
potentially large number of American citizens."
In May, EPIC Executive Director
Marc Rotenberg testified before the
Judiciary Committee and recommended that Congress strengthen oversight
procedures to protect
privacy and limit possible misuses of the legal
authority. EPIC's Rotenberg cited a 2003 report by the American Bar
recommending new reporting requirements for the FISA.
The US Supreme Court has also decided to review Clapper v. Amnesty
a case over the public standing to challenge the
constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act.
US House Judiciary Committee:
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
US House: Full Committee Markup of HR 5949 (June 19, 2012)
House Judiciary Committee: Testimony of Marc Rotenberg (May 31, 2012)
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
EPIC: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
 EPIC Calls On FTC to Investigate Facebook Email Changes
EPIC has asked the Federal Trade Commission to review Facebook's
decision to change Facebook users' default email addresses, arguing
that the change represents a deceptive practice and raises
about Facebook's ability to comply with the terms of a proposed
settlementwith the FTC.
Facebook recently replaced users'
individual displayed email addresses
with the uniform @facebook.com email. Facebook changed these
preferences without notifying
users or obtaining their consent. Some
previous statements by Facebook, however, had implied that users would
be given a degree
of control over whether they were given @facebook.com
email addresses at all.
In November 2011, Facebook and the FTC reached a
over charges that Facebook had engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices in violating the privacy
of its users. The settlement
followed from complaints filed in 2009 and 2010 by EPIC and other
consumer and privacy organizations.
The settlement prohibits Facebook
from misrepresenting the privacy or security of users' personal
information. Additionally, Facebook
must obtain users' affirmative,
express consent before sharing their information in a way that exceeds
their privacy settings,
establish a comprehensive privacy program, and
submit to independent audits for 20 years.
EPIC argued that the FTC should review
Facebook's decision to override
users' email preferences as it finalizes the settlement. "Facebook's
willingness to disregard user
choice and the increased pressure to
monetize user data raise important questions about the company's
ability to comply with the
terms of the proposed Consent Order,"
EPIC wrote. EPIC also argued that, standing alone, Facebook's changes
constitute a deceptive
business practice, because Facebook never told
users about the planned change. EPIC also pointed out that changing the
listed on a user's profile could have the practical
effect of directing email to Facebook's servers. Finally, EPIC said
explanation that these changes were to benefit
"visibility", rather than affecting privacy, was "nonsensical."
EPIC: Letter to
FTC re: Facebook Email (Jun. 27, 2012)
Facebook: Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
Facebook: Data Use Policy
FTC: Press Release on Facebook Settlement (Nov. 29, 2011)
FTC: Agreement and Consent Order Against Facebook (Nov. 29, 2011)
EPIC: 2009 Facebook Complaint (Dec. 17, 2009)
EPIC: 2010 Facebook Complaint (May 5, 2010)
FTC: Facebook Settlement Comments (Dec. 27, 2011)
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
EPIC: Facebook Settlement
 Senate Judiciary Holds Hearing on Voter Suppression
The US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing June 26
"Prohibiting the Use of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Tactics in Federal Elections." The Senate is considering
legislation to address the problem of deceptive practices and voter
intimidation. Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) cited
identification laws" as one of the obstacles to public participation in
federal elections. A new report highlights
similar problems in the
recent Canadian national election. EPIC has published reports on
deceptive campaign practices and filed
briefs in opposition to
unnecessary voter ID requirements.
The Senate's "Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention
of 2011" prohibits individuals from knowingly providing false
statements concerning "the time or place of holding any election
. . .,
or the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any
such election" with the "the intent to mislead voters,
or the intent
to impede, hinder, discourage, or prevent another person from
exercising the right to vote in an election." It also
individuals from knowingly communicating "a materially false statement
about an endorsement" with the "intent to mislead
voters." The bill
creates both a private right of action as well as criminal penalties
for violations. Senate witness testimony
both espoused S.1994 for
combating voter suppression, and opposed the bill for a possible
chilling effect on First Amendment Rights.
EPIC has a longstanding history in advocating for voter privacy and the
unfettered right to vote. In 2010, EPIC filed a "friend
of the court"
brief in Doe v. Reed, urging the Supreme Court to protect the privacy
of those who sign petitions for ballot initiatives.
In Doe v. Reed,
the Court was asked to determine whether Washington State may force
disclosure of the names of citizens who have
signed petitions for
ballot initiatives. EPIC's brief argued that revealing the names
would subject signatories to the risk of
retribution, that signing
petitions constitutes anonymous speech, and that signing petitions
is similar to casting a vote and should
be protected accordingly.
In a March 2007 statement to the US House Committee on the Judiciary,
EPIC cautioned against new photo
identification and proof of
citizenship requirements for federal elections. Absent evidence of an
actual problem, EPIC warned that
the requirements could discourage
legal voters. EPIC noted that Congress has already provided for
provisional ballots for instances
when there are doubts about the
status of voters seeking to cast ballots in public elections. That
same year, in Crawford v. Marion
County Election Board, EPIC, along
with several legal scholars and technical experts, submitted a
"friend of the court" brief to
the United States Supreme Court,
urging the Court to invalidate an Indiana Law requiring individuals
to show a government-issued
photo ID card before allowing them to vote.
In 2009, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed EPIC Associate Director
and leading election
reform advocate Lillie Coney to the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors. EAC is an independent,
charged with developing guidance to meet Help
America Vote Act requirements, adopting voluntary voting system
guidelines, and serving
as a national clearinghouse of information
about election administration.
Senate Judiciary Committee: Hearing on Voter ID Bill
(June 26, 2012)
GovTrack: Voting Act of 2011 (SB 1979)
Sen. Patrick Leahy: Press Release on Senate Hearing (June 26, 2012)
EPIC: Study on Robocalls in 2012 Canadian Election (Apr. 23, 2012)
EPIC: E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Report 2010
EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy
EPIC: Voting Privacy
EPIC: Doe v. Reed
EPIC: Voter ID Statement to House Judiciary Committee (March 7, 2007)
EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
United States Election Assistance Commission
US EAC: Help America Vote Act
 News in Brief
EPIC Joins Open Government Groups in Freedom of Information Act Case
EPIC has joined five other prominent open government groups in a
"friend of the court" brief in support of Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington. The organization is seeking to reverse a
federal court decision that held that federal agencies - in
the Federal Election Commission - do not have to state whether they
will comply with a FOIA request. In their brief,
the open government
groups claim that the ruling conflicts with the plain language of the
Freedom of Information Act and would produce unnecessary confusion in
EPIC et al.: Brief re: Citizens for Responsibility (Jun. 18, 2012)
DC District Court: Decision in CREW v. FEC (Dec. 30, 2011)
EPIC: Open Government
EPIC: FOIA Litigation Docket
Facebook Acquires Facial Recognition Company Face.com
Facebook has announced the acquisition of Face.com, a facial
technology company and longtime Facebook business
partner. Facebook uses an automatic facial recognition system,
called "tag suggestions,"
to create a database of users' biometric
information. In 2011, EPIC filed a complaint with the Federal Trade
that Facebook created biometric profiles of users
without their explicit consent, failed to provide a clear mechanism for
of these profiles, and failed to take adequate safeguards
to ensure that users' biometric information would not be accessible to
government agents and other third parties. In recent comments to the
FTC, EPIC recommended the suspension of facial recognition
deployment until adequate safeguards and privacy standards are
EPIC: Complaint to FTC on Facebook Facial
Recognition (Jun. 10, 2011)
EPIC: Comments to FTC on Facial Recognition (Jan. 31, 2012)
Face.com: Press Release on Acquisition by Facebook (Jun. 18, 2012)
EPIC: Facial Recognition
EPIC: Facebook and Facial Recognition
US Attorneys General to Focus on 'Privacy in the Digital Age'
The National Association of Attorneys General has unanimously
Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler as the organization's president
for the 2012-2013 session. As president, Gansler
"Privacy in the Digital Age," a new initiative designed to "bring the
energy and legal weight of this organization
to investigate, educate
and take necessary steps to ensure that the Internet's major players
protect the privacy of online consumers
while balancing their
legitimate business interest." Recently Gansler met with consumer and
privacy advocates at a meeting hosted
by the Privacy Coalition. Earlier
in 2012 Gansler, along with more than 25 other state attorneys general,
sent a letter to Google
co-founder Larry Page, asking for a meeting to
discuss the company's plans to consolidate Google users' personal
MD AG Office: Press Release on Doug Gansler Election (Jun. 22, 2012)
NAAG: Letter to Google re: Account Consolidation (Feb. 22, 2012)
National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
The Privacy Coalition
EPIC: EPIC v. FTC (Google Consent Order)
EPIC: Privacy Preemption Watch
DHS Privacy Office Seeks Applicants for Data Privacy Committee
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that it is seeking
applicants for the agency's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory
Committee. The Advisory Committee was established to advise DHS
issues related to personally identifiable information, data integrity,
and other privacy-related matters. DHS has a mandate
from Congress to
ensure that agency programs "do not erode privacy protections" and that
personal information is "handled in full
compliance with fair
information practices as set out in the Privacy Act of 1974."
Applications are due on or before July 23, 2012.
Federal Register: DHS Advisory Committee Openings (Jun. 22, 2012)
DHS: DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee
FindLaw: Statute on DHS Privacy Office
EPIC: DHS Chief Privacy Office and Privacy
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
 EPIC in the News
"Show Me Your Papers." The New York Times, July 1, 2012.
"Supreme Court Decision Could Boost Consumers In Privacy Lawsuits."
MediaPost, June 28, 2012.
"How SCOTUS real estate case could affect Internet privacy litigation."
Thomson Reuters, June 27, 201.
"Google Maps: Now Helping Your Boss Track Your Every Move." Time,
June 27, 2012.
"Facebook's E-Mail Switch Merits FTC Review, Group Says." Bloomberg,
June 27, 2012.
"Florida hopes to fill its skies with unmanned aircraft." USA Today,
June 23, 2012.
"Facebook Settles Privacy Lawsuit, Buys Facial Recognition Company
Face.com." Search Engine Watch, June 18, 2012.
For More EPIC in the News:
 Book Review: 'Confront and Conceal'
"Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of
American Power," David E. Sanger
Within the first few chapters of David E. Sanger's riveting book,
"Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use
Power," unmanned aerial vehicles fly undetected with the help of high-
tech, radar-dampening "skin"; an imposter negotiating
treaty flees with hundreds of thousands of dollars when his cover is
blown; and a regular Joe catapults out of
a Black Hawk helicopter with
SEAL Team 6 soldiers deployed to kill Osama Bin Laden. James Bond fans
rejoice: in this gripping
narrative of recent foreign policy and
national security efforts, the truth is finally more thrilling than
chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, deftly
presents the intricacies of the geopolitical problems Obama faced
the first three years of his presidency. Particularly satisfying are
the connections Sanger makes between discrete above-the-crease
including Obama's approach to the Bin Laden raid and his increasing
reliance on drones and cyber warfare. Importantly,
Sanger also reveals
the limitations of America's power to shape regional security. He
exposes the folly of the US attempt to "remake"
Afghanistan and the
dangers of releasing malware, such as Stuxnet, into the cyber-ecosystem.
Although Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
were conducted in the
(relative) open, with troops on the ground, intervening circumstances
have pushed the war and the techniques
used to wage it underground.
The Obama Doctrine, writes Sanger, asserts that "adversaries can be
effectively confronted through
indirect methods - without boots on the
ground, without breaking the treasury, and without the mistake of
mission creep." Confront
and Conceal offers a glimpse into this
increasingly secretive world. In a particularly fascinating chapter
called "Olympic Games,"
Sanger recounts the Obama administration's first
use of cyber warfare techniques - a computer worm delivered via USB
terrorized and befuddled Iran's most brilliant nuclear
scientists, forcing them to shut down a the secret nuclear plant.
and Conceal" is also fundamentally about the evolution of
the Obama Administration's foreign policy. Sanger argues convincingly
that the President has surprised both supporters and detractors with
his willingness to confront US enemies and perceived friends,
unilateral force if necessary. The Bin Laden raid - conducted with
only 50-50 certainty that America's Public Enemy #1 was
within the compound - violated Pakistan's sovereignty and caused the
deep humiliation of Pakistan's military and the alienation
government from the US. Indeed, Obama's reliance on drones became
necessary in part because Pakistan no longer tolerated
of US troops subsequent to the raid.
Confront and Conceal offers an insider's view of the White House's
to foreign policy and national security. Sanger is strongest
when he lets the events speak for themselves, and weakest when he
editorializes, as he does at length about the future of Afghanistan.
The reporting is convincing in part because he is able to
the first-hand sources from among Obama's inner circle, such as
Thomas Donilon, the White House's National Security Advisor.
Elsewhere, Sanger's critics have noted his closeness to the
administration as reason to be skeptical of the veracity of his
This grain of salt notwithstanding, the book is an
impressive account that will long be useful to anyone trying to
the intricacies of the national security strategy
formerly known as the War on Terror.
-- Allegra Funsten
"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
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, and constitutional values 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
The 12th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS 2012). 11-13
July 2012, Vigo, Spain. For More Information:
"The Great Privacy Debate." 18 July 2012, Washington, DC. For More
CONSENT policy conference: "Perceptions, Privacy and Permissions:
the role of consent in on-lineservices." 6-7 September 2012,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Call for papers by 7 June 2012. For More
DataCenter Dynamics Converged. 12 September 2012, Washington, DC. For
More Information: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/conferences/2012/
Amsterdam Privacy Conference. 7-10 October 2012, Amsterdam. For More
34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy. 23-25
October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay. For more information:
The Public Voice Conference. 22 October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay.
For more information: http://www.thepublicvoice.org/.
PIPA Conference 2012: "Privacy on the Go." 1-2 November 2012, Calgary,
Alberta. For More Information: http://privacyconference2012.ca.
"Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: Reloading Data Protection."
23-25 January 2013, Brussels. For More information:
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.
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
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 19.12 ------------------------