EPIC Alert 19.15
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 19.15 August 16, 2012
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 FTC Fines Google $22.5M for Privacy Violations
 FTC Finalizes Settlement in EPIC Facebook Complaint
 DC Circuit
Court Orders TSA to Answer EPIC's Mandamus Petition
 EPIC Urges Education Department to Protect Student Privacy
 EPIC Sues
for Details of ODNI Plan to Amass Data on Americans
 News in Brief
 EPIC in the News
 Book Review: 'More Essential than
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
 FTC Fines
Google $22.5M for Privacy Violations
The Federal Trade
Commission has fined Google $22.5 million for
violating the terms of a settlement reached with the company last year.
the settlement by placing advertising tracking cookies
on Safari browsers despite telling users it would honor the default
privacy settings, which prevented the placement of such cookies.
The fine represents the largest penalty ever levied by the FTC
violation of a settlement.
Specifically, Google made deceptive statements about the extent to
which users could rely
on Safari's default settings to protect their
privacy. Safari browsers strictly limit the placement of persistent
or "cookies," by third parties. Google circumvented this
default setting by placing advertising cookies on the browsers of
users. Google also told users that Apple's default settings
would prevent the placement of advertising cookies. Thus, the FTC
Google had "misrepresented the extent to which users may
exercise control over the collection or use of covered information,
violating Part ICA of the Google Consent Order."
The settlement follows from a complaint filed by EPIC over Google
Buzz, the social
network service launched in early 2010. At the time,
EPIC filed a detailed complaint with the Trade Commission, which
basis for the subsequent investigation and settlement.
The settlement prohibits Google from misrepresenting the extent to
it maintains the privacy and security of personal information,
and requires the company to submit to independent privacy audits
the next 20 years.
Earlier in 2012, Google announced that it would begin creating
comprehensive profiles of its users by
combining personal information
gathered from over 60 Google services. This consolidation prompted
objections from European Union
data protection authorities, US state
attorneys general, members of Congress, and IT managers in the
government and private sectors.
EPIC subsequently filed suit in federal district court to compel the
FTC to prevent the consolidation of user information, arguing
violated the terms of the settlement. The court, while sympathetic to
EPIC's position, denied EPIC's motion, holding that
the court lacked
jurisdiction to compel the FTC to take an enforcement action. Now,
the Commission has announced the largest fine
in a consumer privacy
case in the agency's history. Previously, the largest fine was $15M
against the databroker Choicepoint, a
case that also arose from a
complaint filed by EPIC.
FTC: Statement of the Commission on Google Fine (Aug. 9, 2012)
FTC: Press Release on Google Fine (Aug. 9, 2012)
EPIC: Letter to FTC re: Safari Tracking Cookies (Feb. 17, 2012)
FTC: Press Release on Google Buzz Settlement (Mar. 30, 2011)
DC District Court: Memorandum Opinion on Google (Feb. 24, 2012)
EPIC et al.: Letter to Rep. Mary Bono-Mack re: Google (Feb. 24, 2012)
NAAG: Letter to Google re: Safari Hack (Feb. 22, 2012)
Article 29 Working Party: Letter to Google (Feb 2, 2012)
Rep. Ed Markey et al.: Letter to Google (Jan. 26, 2012)
EPIC: Google's Circumvention of Browser Privacy Settings
EPIC: EPIC v. FTC (Google Consent Order)
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
 FTC Finalizes Settlement in EPIC Facebook Complaint
The Federal Trade Commission has finalized the terms of
with Facebook first announced in November 2011. The settlement bars
Facebook from changing privacy settings without
the affirmative consent
of users or misrepresenting the privacy or security of users' personal
The settlement follows
from detailed complaints filed by EPIC, with the
backing of a coalition of consumer and privacy organizations, in 2009
over Facebook's decision to change its users' privacy settings
in a way that made users' personal information more widely available
to the public and to Facebook's business partners. Under the terms of
the settlement, Facebook is prohibited from misrepresenting
or security of users' personal information, and must (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
Facebook cannot access personal
information after a user deletes an account; and (4) submit to
independent audits for 20 years.
In comments filed with the FTC, EPIC recommended strengthening the
settlement by requiring Facebook to restore the privacy settings
had in 2009; giving users access to all of the data that Facebook keeps
about them; preventing Facebook from creating facial
profiles without users' consent; and publicizing the results of the
government privacy audits. Although the FTC decided
to adopt the
settlement without any modifications, in a response to EPIC, the
Commission said that facial recognition data is included
settlement's definition of "covered information," that the audits would
be publicly available to the extent permitted
by law, and that the
terms of the settlement "are broad enough to address misconduct beyond
that expressly challenged in the complaint."
The Secretary of the FTC
thanked EPIC for the petition that triggered the investigation, and
for "other correspondence about Facebook's
privacy practices and
appreciates its support of the proposed complaint."
FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissented from the
citing concerns that the provisions might not adequately cover
deceptive statements made by Facebook apps. Commissioner
questioned the FTC's practice of allowing companies like Facebook to
FTC: Press Release on Final
Facebook Settlement (Aug. 10, 2012)
FTC: Settlement with Facebook (Nov. 29, 2011)
EPIC: In re: Facebook (Complaint) 2009 (Dec. 17, 2009)
EPIC: In re: Facebook 2 (Complaint) 2010 (May 5, 2010)
EPIC: Comments on Facebook Settlement (Dec. 17, 2011)
FTC: Response to EPIC re: Facebook Complaints (Jul. 27, 2012)
FTC: Dissent of Commiss. Rosch on Facebook Settlement (Aug. 10, 2012)
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
 DC Circuit Court Orders TSA to Answer EPIC's Mandamus
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has
ordered the Department
of Homeland Security to respond to EPIC's recent mandamus petition,
which requested that the court "enforce
[its] mandate" and require the
TSA to set a date to begin the public rulemaking on the airport body
scanner screening program,
as required by law, or to suspend the
EPIC's petition argued that the TSA's failure to publish a rule or
notice regarding the body scanners is a violation of the
July 2011 court order, and constitutes an "unreasonable delay" that is
sufficient to sustain EPIC's claim for relief. More than a year has
passed since the TSA was ordered to "act promptly" and begin
rulemaking, and more than two years since the airport body scanner
program was implemented nationwide. The petition makes
clear that the
TSA must act immediately to comply with the court's order.
EPIC's petition also contended that recent cases in
the DC Circuit
demonstrate that the court can grant a Writ of Mandamus "where an
agency, subject to remand, failed to make a timely
required by the Court." This is especially true in cases where there
are ongoing safety concerns. In the case
of the body scanners, The
TSA still has not conducted an independent safety assessment, despite
the fact that top radiation experts
have expressed concerns about the
technology and called for further evaluation. Meanwhile, recent
reports and comments from the
House Oversight Committee charged with
reviewing TSA's activities have concluded that the machines are
response is due August 30, 2012.
DC Circuit Court: Order to TSA to Conduct Rulemaking (Aug. 1, 2012)
EPIC: Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Jul. 17, 2012)
Coalition in support of EPIC: Brief on Petition (Jul. 19, 2012)
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
 EPIC Urges Education Department to Protect Student
EPIC has submitted comments to the US Department
recommending that the agency collect only "relevant and necessary"
student information when it undertakes educational
agency's Institute of Education Sciences has proposed a "Study of
Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs"
to help assess
teacher effectiveness. The new database will contain records on
"approximately 5,000 students and 360 teachers."
EPIC urged the agency
to collect only student data germane to teacher effectiveness, such as
test scores, and opposed the agency's
collection of detailed student
information such as actual name and "disciplinary incidences."
The Education Department's proposed
study will analyze "the effect on
student learning of teachers who have experienced intensive clinical
practice within their teacher
preparation programs." The study's
database will include personal information gathered from students and
teachers. Student records
currently within the database include name,
birth date, disciplinary incidences, and reading and mathematics test
comments stated, "[t]he Privacy Act permits the Education
Department to collect only relevant and necessary information," and
the agency should narrow its collection of student records.
Specifically, because the study evaluates teacher effectiveness on
student reading and math achievement, it should limit information
collection to "educational background" and test scores, and exclude
information not directly related to teacher effectiveness. EPIC also
noted that in light of the 2011 massive security breach of
Education Department website, a more narrowly defined information
collection will diminish risks to student privacy. Lastly,
explained that under the Privacy Act, the Education Department does not
meet the standards for disclosing student records
outside the agency
without first obtaining student consent.
Earlier in 2012, EPIC filed a lawsuit against the Department of
under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the
agency's December 2011 regulatory changes of the Family Educational
and Privacy Act exceed the agency's statutory authority and are
contrary to law. In 2011, EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief
Chicago Tribune v. University of Illinois, a case involving student
privacy rights protected by FERPA. During the George W.
Administration, EPIC and more than 100 local, state, and national
organizations urged then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
the "Joint Advertising and Market Research Studies" Recruiting
Database, which discloses personal information about 16-25-year-old
Americans without obtaining individual consent.
EPIC: Comments to Ed. Dept. re: Student Privacy (Jul. 30, 2012)
Education Department: Institute of Education Sciences
Federal Register: Ed. Dept. Privacy Act SORN (Jun. 28, 2012)
EPIC: EPIC v. US Department of Education
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Tribune v. U. IL (Jul. 20, 2011)
Privacy Coalition: DoD Database Campaign Coalition Letter (2003)
EPIC: Student Privacy
 EPIC Sues for Details of ODNI Plan to Amass Data on
EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), seeking documents
related to the collection and integration
of detailed personal
information of US persons from databases at various levels of
government. The ODNI is the top intelligence
agency in the US,
coordinating the activities of agencies including the CIA, the FBI, and
ODNI's current (March 2012)
"Guidelines for Access, Retention, Use, and
Dissemination by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)" describe
procedures used to combine databases containing
"non-terrorism information." Under the revised guidelines, the detailed
information that will populate the integrated ODNI databases
will be amassed from across the federal government. The data then will
be kept for up to five years without the legal safeguards typically in
place for personal data held by government agencies.
the guidelines' publication, EPIC filed several FOIA requests,
seeking documents identifying both "priority" databases and any
procedural safeguards in place to ensure accuracy and data security.
EPIC requested documents related to (1) the "priority list"
databases discussed in the NTCT Guidelines, (2) data accuracy and
security safeguards, (3) agreements and disputes between ODNI
agency heads, and (4) interpretations of key standards used to
identify "terrorism information."
After the ODNI failed to
make a timely response to EPIC's FOIA
requests, EPIC filed suit in the Washington, DC District Court.
EPIC's complaint demands
that ODNI conduct a reasonable search
and promptly disclose responsive records.
EPIC: Complaint Against ODNI (Aug. 1, 2012)
ODNI: Guidelines for NCTC Datasets (Mar. 2012)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring
EPIC: Information Fusion Centers and Privacy
 News in Brief
EPIC: Voters Should Be Wary of 2012 Election Apps
EPIC has released a report, "Smartphones and the 2012 Election,"
the potential risks to voters who download election-related
apps to their smartphones and tablets. The report contends that these
apps promote greater citizen participation in e-democracy, but also
may contain malware, disseminate false information - or, as
recently reported of an Obama campaign app, compromise voter privacy by
making voters' personal and locational information
A recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School
for Communication revealed that voters are
"personalized" political advertising, a practice likely to increase
with the number of election and political
apps available for download.
EPIC's report also examines the role of federal and state regulation
in protecting voters and providing
guidance to campaigns, and
recommends actions that voters, election administrators, and
campaigns can take to better protect voter
EPIC: Paper on 'Smartphones and the 2012 Election' (Aug. 2012)
U. Penn. Annenberg School: Study on "Tailored" Voter Ads (Jul. 2012)
EPIC: Voting Privacy
EPIC: Location Privacy: Apple iPhone / iPad
Federal Court to Hear Arguments in Cell Phone Tracking Case
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has tentatively
oral argument in the first week of October for a
current case, In re US Application for Historic Cell-Site Location
which addresses whether the Fourth Amendment allows the
US government to force disclosure of historical cell phone location
without a warrant. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in
this case, arguing that cell phone location records reveal private
information and should be protected even if they are held by third
party cell phone companies.
EPIC: In re Historic Cell-Site
EPIC: Brief for In re Cell-Site Location Information (Mar. 17, 2012)
EPIC: Locational Privacy
Markey Bill Would Limit Drone Surveillance
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) has announced a bill aimed at
privacy from drone surveillance. Rep. Markey
said, "When it comes to privacy protections for the American people,
drones are flying
blind." The draft bill requires the FAA to establish
privacy safeguards for drone operators and creates new limits on data
by law enforcement agencies. Earlier in 2012, EPIC, joined
by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public,
the FAA to begin a rulemaking on the privacy impact of drone
Rep. Ed Markey: Press Release on Drone Bill (Aug. 1, 2012)
Rep. Ed Markey: Draft Bill to Modify FAA Act of 2012 (Aug. 1, 2012)
EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA on Drone Use (Feb. 24, 2012)
GovTrack: Full Text of FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
IL Becomes Third State to Stop Employers from Demanding Facebook Info
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) has signed a bill
employers from demanding social network usernames and passwords. The
"Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act"
takes effect on Jan. 1, 2013,
and will result in Illinois joining Maryland and Delaware as the
third state that protects the social
network privacy of employees and
IL Government News: Press Release on Gov. Quinn's Bill (Aug. 1, 2012)
State of IL: 'Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act' (Aug. 1, 2012)
State of MD: Social Networking Privacy Bill (Apr. 1, 2012)
State of DE: Social Networking Privacy Bill (Jul. 20, 2012)
EPIC: Workplace Privacy
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
US Pushes Forward Flawed International Privacy Framework
The US is the lone non-Asian signatory to the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation's Cross Border Privacy Rules. The APEC Rules set out a
self-regulatory framework for the transfer of personal data across
national borders. APEC is an inter-governmental organization with 21
member economies that promotes business and trade in the Asia-Pacific
region. APEC established a Privacy Framework in 2005 that is generally
considered among the weakest in the world. In 2006, EPIC
coalition of consumer groups submitted comments to the Department of
Commerce detailing the shortcomings of the APEC framework
recommending stronger safeguards for consumers.
US Commerce Dept.: Press Release on US and APEC Rules (Jul. 26, 2012)
Organization for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
APEC: Privacy Framework of 2005
EPIC et al.: Comments to Commerce on APEC Privacy Framework (2006)
EPIC: International Privacy Standards
Senate Confirms Four Members of the Privacy Civil Liberties Board
The Senate voted Aug. 1 to confirm four nominees to the Privacy
Civil Liberties Oversight Board before its summer recess. Congress
created PCLOB in 2004, at the recommendation of the 9/11
to advise the President and other senior executive branch officials
and ensure that privacy and civil liberties are
protected as laws,
regulations, and executive branch policies are implemented. PCLOB was
reconstituted as an independent agency
in 2007, but since then
Congress has failed to confirm all five members of the board. After
the recent confirmations the Board
can "do work," but it cannot hire
staff until the Senate confirms its Chairman.
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT): Release on PCLOB Nominations
(Aug. 2, 2012)
108th Congress: Act Creating PCLOB (Dec. 17, 2004)
US Senate: Testimony of Prof. Peter Swire on PCLOB (Jul. 31, 2012)
EPIC: Privacy Oversight
EPIC: 'The Sui Generis Privacy Agency' (Sept. 2006)
 EPIC in the News
"FTC gives final approval to Facebook privacy settlement." PC Advisor
UK, Aug. 10, 2012.
"Future changes to Facebook privacy settings to be opt-in." Ars
Technica, Aug. 10, 2012.
"FTC OKs Facebook's privacy settlement." Politico, Aug. 10, 2012.
"Google Said to Face Fine by U.S. Over Apple Safari Breach."
BusinessWeek, Aug. 9, 2012.
"Google Fined Record $22.5M For Privacy Violations, But Admits
Nothing." TalkingPointsMemo.com, Aug. 9, 2012.
"Obama campaign app concerns some privacy advocates." The Washington
Post, Aug. 7, 2012.
"Airport Security." The Huffington Post, Aug. 7, 2012.
"Court orders TSA to justify year-long defiance of the law." Ars
Technica, Aug. 2, 2012.
"Readers Debate Trade-Offs Between Security and Civil Liberties." The
New York Times, Aug. 2, 2010.
"Court Demands TSA Explain Why It Is Defying Nude Body Scanner Order."
Wired, Aug. 1, 2012.
"Drone Privacy Bill Would Put In Safeguards On Surveillance." The
Huffington Post, Aug. 1, 2012.
"FTC proposes tougher rules for online child privacy." MSNBC, Aug, 1,
"Netflix Notifies Customers of Class Action Settlement; Privacy Groups
Will Benefit." ABA Journal, Aug. 1, 2012.
For More EPIC in the News:
 Book Review: 'More Essential than Ever'
"More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First
Century (Inalienable Rights)," Stephen J. Schulhofer.
Like the Fourth Amendment itself, NYU law professor's Stephen J.
Schulhofer's new book, "More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment
in the Twenty First Century" is a complex little gem of text that
raises legal and ethical questions even as it answers them.
"A central concern of this book," states Schulhofer, "is to demonstrate
the importance for all Americans of preserving our capacity
the government's access to facts about ourselves." Schulhofer contends
that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for US
citizens to live like
"hermits" in order to remain unharassed by government agencies - nor
should we, even if hermit life were
still possible. According to
Schulhofer, the Fourth Amendment exists to preserve our privacy, which
he defines as control over
our own information, despite modern courts
and government agencies that are alternatingly overzealous and
antiquated in their interpretations.
The Fourth Amendment is fundamentally about the relationship between
citizens and their government, Schulhofer argues, not between
consumers and the companies they patronize. As a result, Schulhofer
wastes very few pages discussing the relationship between the
Amendment and the private sector. He disapproves, for instance, of data
aggregation companies selling their results to corporations,
labels their effects on consumers somewhere between "nuisance" and
"harm." But the real "threat" to privacy is from the
unfettered access to data, about which he is unequivocal: "Fourth
Amendment safeguards should apply whenever individuals
information to a service provider or other intermediate institution
under promises of confidentiality." In other
words, Schulhofer is
deeply offended by 21st-century applications of the "third-party
doctrine," and finds them an almost-existential
threat to the Fourth
Schulhofer's views on privacy are so balanced as to be almost
ambiguous. He concedes that the
George W. Bush Administration went
overboard in its response to the 9/11 attacks, but also maintains that
threats to national security
were and continue to be quite real. He
believes that the Fourth Amendment, even for constitutional
"originalists," was written
in such a way to balance legitimate search
and seizure of genuine criminals with the rights of everyone else, a
point he returns
to repeatedly throughout the book.
Schulhofer clearly was careful in choosing which topics to cover in a
book this small. "More
Essential Than Ever" was also completed in early
2012, just after the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Jones. As a
spends a disproportionate amount of his limited textual real
estate examining the Fourth Amendment implications of the case. But
perhaps Schulhofer couldn't have found a better venue than US v. Jones
to discuss modern data privacy - and he believes the outcome
Fourth Amendment is "unclear, to say the least." Because "the
constitutional violation, in the Court's eyes, rests on a
is preposterously artificial," he says, "[t]he majority's approach in
Jones offers virtually no defense against the
government's ability to
exploit the intrusive potential of technologies like" smartphones and
built-in vehicle GPS systems.
Essential Than Ever," despite its practical title and deliberately
short length, is a fine book that leaves readers wanting more
"essential" overview of the Fourth Amendment's history, present
applications, and future trajectory. It's a clear-minded,
written synopsis of difficult issues, but those issues require more
than 180 pages to answer, let alone define. Let's hope
releases with a more substantive sequel, and soon.
-- EC Rosenberg
"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall,
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
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/
Cato Institute’s 11th Annual Constitution Day Conference, 18 September
2012, Washington, DC. For More Information:
3rd Annual Privacy, ATI and Security Congress. 4-5 October 2012,
Ottawa, ON. For More Information: http://www.rebootconference.com/
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 19.15 ------------------------