WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2012 >> [2012] EPICAlert 14

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

EPIC Alert 19.14 [2012] EPICAlert 14

EPIC Alert 19.14

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 19.14 July 30, 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== [1] EPIC Demands Evidence of TSA Body Scanner Rulemaking [2] EPIC Asks Congress to Adopt Privacy Safeguards for Drones [3] EPIC to FCC: Require Mobile Phone Carriers to Protect Privacy [4] EPIC Recommends Protections re: Commercial Face Recognition [5] In UK, Google Admits It Retained Street View Data [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] Book Review: 'How to Be Invisible, 3rd Edition' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Require the TSA to Follow the Law! - SIGN the Petition: - READ about EPIC v. DHS: - SUPPORT EPIC: ======================================================================== [1] EPIC Demands Evidence of TSA Body Scanner Rulemaking ======================================================================== EPIC has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Transportation Security Administration, seeking documents that indicate whether the agency intends to provide the opportunity for public commentary on the controversial airport body scanner program. According to DHS documents, the TSA "staff responsible for drafting the proposed rule indicated [that] they had an initial, very preliminary draft prepared by August 11, 2011. . ." EPIC's FOIA request seeks disclosure of this document. One year has passed since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the TSA to "act promptly" and undertake a public notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court's ruling followed EPIC's lawsuit against DHS, which claimed that the agency had violated federal law by making the body scanners primary screening technology without public input. The court noted that "few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public," and ordered DHS to "act promptly on remand to cure the defect of its promulgation" of the body scanner program. More than a year later, DHS has not published the rule or accepted public comments on airport body scanners - nor has it given any indication of a date when it will do so. In a separate Petition for Writ of Mandamus, EPIC asked the DC Circuit Court to require the agency to issue a proposed rule within 60 days or suspend the scanner program. EPIC's petition argues that DHS's failure to publish a rule constitutes unreasonable agency delay, and that the court should order DHS to issue a public rule within 60 days, or else suspend the agency's rule pending the APA rulemaking procedure required by law. EPIC's petition also states that DHS's failure to comply with the mandate shields the screening program from judicial review under the APA and leaves the matter in "administrative limbo." An online petition posted on the "We the People" website demands that the White House "Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!" Many organizations support the petition and other efforts to enforce the 2011 court order that the TSA comply with APA rulemaking requirements. EPIC: FOIA Request to Department of Homeland Security (Jul. 18, 2011) EPIC: Petition for Writ of Mandamus re: Body Scanners (Jul. 17, 2012) White House Petition: "Require the TSA to Follow the Law!" EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners ======================================================================= [2] EPIC Asks Congress to Adopt Privacy Safeguards for Drones ======================================================================= EPIC testified July 19 at a US House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee hearing on "Using Unmanned Aerial Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game Changer?". The hearing examined federal use of drones within the US. EPIC Associate Litigation Counsel Amie Stepanovich testified on the privacy implications of domestic drone use, stating that "the privacy and security concerns arising from the use of drones needs to be addressed," and calling for specific legislative safeguards to limit drone surveillance. A 2012 re-authorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration requires the agency to develop rules governing the operation of drones within the United States. In February, EPIC, joined by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, petitioned the FAA to begin a rulemaking on the privacy impact of drone use. The agency has yet to respond to EPIC's petition or address other privacy concerns. EPIC previously recommended that the FAA develop privacy rules, that DHS conduct a privacy assessment, and that Congress establish new privacy safeguards. The US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection owns 10 Predator drones to operate along US borders at a cost of approximately $18 million each, with an additional $55.3 million total for maintenance and operations. A recent report by the DHS Office of the Inspector General concluded that Customs and Border Protection "needs to improve planning of its unmanned aircraft systems program to address its level of operation, program funding, and resource requirements, along with stakeholder needs." Despite the CPB's limited mission to safeguard the borders, the report demonstrated that CPB often flies missions for the FBI, the Defense Department, local law enforcement, and other agencies. This practice made headlines in 2011 when police in North Dakota used a CPB drone to arrest a US citizen. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Austin Scott (R-TX) have introduced bills in the Senate and the House designed to limit the use of drones or surveillance within the US. The bills would require law enforcement to receive a warrant before conducting any criminal surveillance of individuals. US House: Hearing on Drones and Homeland Security (Jul. 19, 2012) EPIC: Testimony on Drones before US House (Jul. 19, 2012) EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones FAA: 2012 Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act EPIC: APA Petition to the FAA (Feb. 24, 2012) DHS Office of Inspector General: Drone Report (May 30, 2012) US House: Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 ======================================================================== [3] EPIC to FCC: Require Mobile Phone Carriers to Protect Privacy ======================================================================== EPIC, joined by the group Consumer Watchdog, has submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission on the privacy and security of information stored on mobile phones. The comments discuss the various privacy risks, including more collection of consumer data, created by the business practices of many carriers, and they recommend that the FCC require mobile carriers to implement "clear, comprehensive, and easily understandable" privacy and security protections based on Fair Information Practices. The FCC had already requested comments on numerous issues, including whether consumers were given meaningful notice and choice with respect to service providers' collection of usage-related information on their devices, and whether providers' current practices were potentially detrimental to consumer privacy and data security. EPIC's comments list several practices employed by carriers that create privacy and security risks for consumers, including "price discrimination on the basis of consumer profiles" collected by commercial mobile surveillance, or carriers making "ordinarily private information accessible to law enforcement officials" without a search warrant. EPIC's comments recommend that the FCC require carriers to implement specific practices. For example, carriers should obtain, at the time of data collection, consumer consent to share data with third parties; limit the use of such data to the purposes stated at the time of collection; and oblige carriers to inform customers of the identities of every affiliate, agent, or entity to which personal information has been disclosed. EPIC also recommends that the agency force carriers "to provide reasonable access to personal data stored about customers], as well as create an easily navigable mechanism to correct inaccurate information and request the removal of data." In 2007 comments to the FCC, EPIC called for increased protections for customers' Customer Proprietary Network Information, and in 2001 EPIC urged the FCC to establish fair location information practices. EPIC's recent comments to the Federal Trade Commission on mobile advertising disclosures stressed that mobile platforms heighten the problems already inherent in notice-centric approaches to privacy. EPIC: Comments to FCC on Mobile Privacy (Jul. 13, 2012) FCC: Request for Comments on Mobile Privacy (Jun. 13, 2012) EPIC: Comments to FTC on Mobile Privacy (Jul. 11, 2012) EPIC: Comments on FTC Workshop on Mobile Disclosure (May 11, 2012) EPIC: Comments to FCC on CPNI (Jul. 2007) EPIC: Comments to FCC on Fair Information Practices (Apr. 2001) EPIC: Customer Proprietary Network Information EPIC: Location Privacy The White House: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (Feb. 2012) FTC: "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change" (2012) ======================================================================= [4] EPIC Recommends Protections re: Commercial Face Recognition ======================================================================= The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law held a July 18 hearing to address "What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties." The Subcommittee called two panels of witnesses to discuss the impact of facial recognition technology. The first panel included representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade Commission. The second panel included EPIC Advisory Board member Alessandro Acquisti, other researchers in the fields of biometrics and science policy, and representatives from Facebook and the National Sheriffs' Association. As Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) made clear in his opening statement at the hearing, the use of facial recognition technology requires careful consideration because "biometric information is already among the most sensitive of our private information, mainly because it is both unique and permanent." Unlike a password, you cannot change your face, or the resulting "faceprint" created by facial recognition technology. While there are many legitimate uses of this technology, Franken noted, others "should give us pause." Franken also commented that Facebook "may have created the world's largest privately-held database of faceprints - without explicit consent of its users." In a statement for the record, EPIC called on the Subcommittee to protect individuals' ability to control the disclosure of their identity, and that Fair Information Practices be enforced against companies that collect facial recognition data. These legal obligations would include limitations on collection, use, and retention of the data, informed consent, security, accessibility, and accountability. "In the absence of guidelines and legal standards, EPIC recommends a moratorium on the commercial deployment of facial recognition techniques." In 2011, EPIC filed a complaint with the FTC against Facebook's facial recognition technology, stating that Facebook created biometric profiles of users without their explicit consent, failed to provide a clear mechanism for the deletion 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. US Senate: Hearing on Facial Recognition (Jul. 18, 2012) Sen. Al Franken: Statement at Senate Hearing (Jul. 18, 2012) Prof. Alessandro Acquisti: Statement at Hearing (Jul. 18, 2012) EPIC: Statement at Facial Recognition Hearing (Jul. 18, 2012) EPIC: Facial Recognition EPIC: Facebook and Facial Recognition ======================================================================== [5] In UK, Google Admits It Retained Street View Data ======================================================================== In a recent letter to the UK Information Commissioner, Google has admitted it retained payload data improperly collected by Street View vehicles. Google had promised earlier it would delete the data. The UK privacy commissioner's office has now demanded that Google turn over the payload data for examination and forensic analysis. Europe, the UK, Israel, and some Asian countries have led the US in their investigations of and resultant cases against Google Street View. Since their worldwide deployment in 2007, Google Street View vehicles had obtained a vast amount of Wi-Fi data from Wi-Fi receivers that were concealed in the Street View vehicles. Google now concedes that it gathered MAC addresses (the unique device ID for Wi-Fi hotspots) and network SSIDs (user-assigned network ID names) tied to location information from private wireless networks. Google also admits that it has intercepted and stored Wi-Fi transmission data, which includes email passwords and content. Earlier in 2012, the Federal Communications Commission fined Google $25,000 for obstructing an investigation of Google Street View's potential violation of federal wiretap law. The Commission found that Google impeded by "delaying its search for and production of responsive emails and other communications, by failing to identify employees, and by withholding verification of the completeness and accuracy of its submissions." In May 2010, EPIC wrote to the FCC and urged the agency to undertake an investigation after it became clear that Google had intercepted the private communications of millions of users of Wi-Fi networks in the United States. Shortly afterward, the head of the FCC Bureau of Consumer and Governmental Affairs wrote that Google's action "clearly infringes on consumer privacy." EPIC has continued to press the FCC to follow through on investigations of Street View via Freedom of Information Act requests, "friend of the court" briefs in Street View-related cases, and letters to other government officials and agencies. In 2011, EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in a US federal appeals court, arguing that Google Street View violated federal wiretap law. Google: Letter to UK Info. Office re: Street View Data (Jul. 27, 2012) UK Information Commissioner's Office: Letter to Google (Jul. 27, 2012) FCC: Settlement with Google re: Google Street View (Apr. 13, 2012) EPIC: Letter to FCC re: Street View (May 21, 2010) FCC: Blog Post on Google Street View (Jun. 11, 2010) EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief re: Street View (Apr. 11, 2011) EPIC: Investigations of Google Street View EPIC: FCC Investigations of Google Street View EPIC: Ben Joffe v. Google ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== London Olympics Underway, Privacy Issues Loom Olympic organizers have stepped up the use of surveillance and identification technologies at the London 2012 games. Body scanners have been installed at entrances to Hyde Park and Victoria Park. IOC members, VIPs, guests, and staff will carry RFID-enabled identity documents. One commentator has noted that even the Olympic Mascot has "A Huge Camera Eye That 'Records Everything.'" Forbes: Post on London Olympics 2012 Surveillance (May 17, 2012) EPIC: Privacy and the 2008 Olympic Games London 2012: Privacy Policy EPIC: Body Scanners EPIC: RFID EPIC: CCTV FISA Reform Proposal Moves Forward in Senate The US Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that establishes new safeguards for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. The Act provides for court approval of "programs of surveillance" that allow for the collection of communications of US citizens. The bill, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would renew the Act but also establish new reporting requirements to improve government accountability. In May 2012, EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and recommended increased oversight and reporting. US Senate: Bill to Extend Amendments to FISA Act GovTrack: Text of FISA Amendments Act of 2008 EPIC: Statement before US House re: FISA Amendments (May 31, 2012) EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) EPIC: Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA Second Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down State Voter ID Law In a second challenge to Wisconsin's voter ID requirement, Judge David Flanagan has held that the ID law imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The law "tells more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters who do not now have an acceptable form of photo identification that they cannot vote unless they first obtain a photo ID card," wrote Judge Flanagan, upholding his March 2012 decision in the case NAACP of Milwaukee v. Gov. Scott Walker. Flanagan's opinion follows a similar ruling earlier this year by Wisconsin judge Richard Niess. Dane County, WI: Clerk of Courts Dane County, WI: First Ruling on Voter ID Requirement (Mar. 15, 2012) Dane County, WI: Additional Ruling on Voter ID Requirement EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County Voters Wary of Individually Tailored Political Ads A report by the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania found that 86% of voters did not want political campaigns to tailor advertisements based on their interests. This percentage is higher than the percentage of respondents who reject other tailored advertisements (61%) or tailored news (56%). Significantly, a majority of respondents also reported that they would be less likely to vote for candidates that targeted them with tailored ads. Annenberg School: Report on "Tailored" Pol. Advertising (July 2012) EPIC: Voter Privacy EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy ======================================================================= [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================= "The Public Is Left in the Dark When Courts Allow Electronic Surveillance." The New York Times, July 23, 2012. "Aerial drones vulnerable to being hacked, Congress told." CNN, July 19, 2012. "McCaul: DHS Ignoring Drone Dangers." National Journal, July 19, 2012. "Senator questions Facebook exec about facial-recognition feature." Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2012. "EDITORIAL: TSA defies the courts - Rogue agency refuses to comply with the law." The Washington Times, July 18, 2012. "Personal info tapped with an app." USA Today, July 18, 2012. "TSA Fails to Comply With Year-Old 'Nude' Body-Scanner Court Order." Wired, July 16, 2012. "FBI Shopping for Social Networking Eves-dropping Software." Digital Journal, July 15, 2012. "White House order on emergency communications riles privacy group." Computerworld, July 10, 2012. For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================= [8] Book Review: 'How to Be Invisible: 3rd Edition' ======================================================================= "How to Be Invisible: 3rd Edition," J. J. Luna. J. J. Luna lives in one hell of a paranoid world. The former Franco-era subversive turned privacy and security consultant firmly believes that the lives of average Americans are one step away from being decimated by stalkers, government agents, and private investigators. His enormously popular and influential manual "How to Be Invisible" - now in a brand-new 3rd Edition to include mobile devices, social networking, and more international content - is as disturbing and anxiety-provoking as it is fascinating. Even privacy advocates may be stunned by a book whose fundamental recommendations are to "never, ever let anyone other than your closest friends know where you really live," and that if you "have ever received a letter or package at your present address under your real name, the only way to protect your privacy is to move." "How to Be Invisible" categorizes personal privacy and anonymity into four levels, which Luna has determined based on how much money and experience a private investigator would need to track you down. Level 1 is "basic" and "economical" and according to Luna "will give you more privacy than 98 percent of the general population"; Level 4 duplicates the Federal Witness Security Program. Meanwhile, depending on what you can stomach, Luna suggests putting your car registration into the name of a third-party LLC, renting a property pre-paid in cash, distrusting your neighbors, and discouraging a college education for your offspring, because "all privacy will be lost until they graduate or drop out." (This last is from the chapter "Cool Stuff That Did Not Fit In Earlier.") Luna, however, is quite reasonable in the area of digital privacy. While he's a fan of pseudonyms, encryption, and the cash-based anonymity of Craigslist, he also recommends basic electronic privacy measures like avoiding clicking on online ads or responding to unsolicited email; researching anyone you meet online; and eschewing smartphones for anonymous, disposable prepays. Previous critiques of "How to Be Invisible" have centered around two issues: the book's American focus, and Luna's advocacy of practices that, while following the letter of the law, are often construed as underhanded and duplicitous. Luna has largely remedied the first complaint by including a chapter on "International Privacy 101," and providing more examples of international privacy issues within the main text. On the other hand, Luna is still advocating scrubbing out the birthdate on your passport, creating "shadow" addresses or businesses that hide your true identity and profession, always operating on a cash-only basis, and even blatantly lying to get someone off your trail - one chapter is called "When Is a Lie Not a Lie?" Perhaps it's best to think of Luna as an ideologue, a strident street preacher whose practical tips to avoid eternal privacy damnation can be adapted to fit your own privacy-imperfect life. In the meantime, please, for the love of God, turn off the .EXIF settings on your digital camera before your post your photos on Facebook. There are people watching. -- 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: ======================================================================= [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= "Airport Body-Scanning: Will TSA Follow the Law?" 19 July 2012, Washington, DC. For More Information: php?eventid=9172. 2012 ASAP Training, with Focus on FOIA and Privacy. 1-3 August 2012, Washington, DC. Registration Closes July 27. For More Information: 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 Information: DataCenter Dynamics Converged. 12 September 2012, Washington, DC. For More Information: washington-dc-2012?i=who-should-attend. 3rd Annual Privacy, ATI and Security Congress. 4-5 October 2012, Ottawa, ON. For More Information: events/information-privacy-security-congress-2012/. Amsterdam Privacy Conference. 7-10 October 2012, Amsterdam. For More Information: 34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy. 23-25 October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay. For more information: noticias/noticia-destacada. The Public Voice Conference. 22 October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay. For more information: PIPA Conference 2012: "Privacy on the Go." 1-2 November 2012, Calgary, Alberta. For More Information: "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. 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 19.14 ------------------------

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback