EPIC Alert 19.21
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 19.21 November 9, 2012
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 Election 2012: Privacy and Unfinished Business
 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Holds First Public
 Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Surveillance Standing Case
 Supreme Court Hears Challenges to Police 'Dog Sniffs'
 EPIC Comments on FTC Rent-to-Own Computer Spying Settlement
 News in Brief
 EPIC in the News
 Book Review: 'The Secret
Lives of Codebreakers'
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
 Election 2012: Privacy and Unfinished Business
column by EPIC President Marc Rotenberg appeared in The
Huffington Post Nov. 7, 2012]
It was a little more than a decade ago that
the United States was
rocked by the events of 9/11. Much happened on that day, including
a sharp turn away from personal privacy
and toward national security.
Up went the cameras and the Patriot Act, and down came many laws that
help safeguard privacy. A new
industry for domestic surveillance
But does it need to be this way? At the beginning of a second term for
Obama, it is time to move beyond the paranoid strategies for
public safety that have dominated both Democratic and Republican
On the civil liberties front, the open secret is that little changed
during the Obama years from the Bush years. The White House
backed the FISA Amendments Act but defended it before the Supreme Court.
That law leaves vulnerable the private communications
of Americans in
circumstances far outside the realm of a legitimate Fourth Amendment
search. It needs a significant review and better
before Congress considers renewal.
Electronic privacy laws need to be updated and strengthened, not just
for the benefit of companies that oppose government searches, but
also for users whose personal data is routinely collected for
and profiling in ways they could not even imagine. And the risks to
medical record privacy will increase as more personal
data is stored
On the consumer privacy front, the administration gets props for the
Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights,
a powerful framework for the protection
of privacy. But this is only an outline and there is much to do,
before online privacy improves. The new
administration would be wise also to take a closer look at cloud
computing. The low-cost
- literally free for many users - structure of
modern computing services also requires that users give up control over
once it resides on someone else's server. That is a cost
that too few users understand. The Federal Trade Commission should begin
workshops on that topic early next year. And while the FTC has been busy
issuing consent orders, it may also want to take a step
back and assess
whether companies are in fact doing what they promised to do. Congress
could help with that effort.
If you look
up in the sky, the odds are growing that you will see a
small aerial drone with a surveillance camera looking back at you.
Obama has promoted the use of drones in the United States,
but has yet to address the privacy consequences. New rules from the
Federal Aviation Administration and legislation are clearly needed.
Several bills are currently pending in the House.
efforts to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act,
launched literally the day after President Obama was first elected to
office, still remains a box unchecked. Perhaps the Justice
gets credit for not joining the Federal Election Commission's effort
to knock out a key pillar of the law - a meaningful
the agency on a request - but across the open government community
the perception remains that agencies are litigating
when they could
simply be making public information available to the public. More can
be done to strengthen open government.
Resolving the challenges of cyber security in the next year will
require better cooperation between the two parties. Business groups
are right to push back on excessive and quickly outdated rules. But
the data in those companies is also that of their customers.
that the problems of security breaches, identity theft, and cyber
attacks will simply go away is to ignore reality.
security and rethinking unbounded data collection, governments and
businesses should continue to follow legal
obligations for privacy
protection and government transparency. There has been enough immunity
for unlawful wiretapping.
believe that if the National Security Agency plans to enter
the realm of domestic computer security, then it must play by the same
rules as other federal agencies - openness and public accountability.
The urgency of the cyber security challenge is an argument
government transparency not government secrecy.
One issue of particular concern to EPIC, not always in the headlines
central to restoring government accountability, is the need to
scale down the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS has become
Brother's laboratory - body scanners at airports, "fusion centers" for
state governments, RFID-enabled identity documents,
cameras on public streets, and "Future Attribute Screening Technology,"
a technique for "pre-crime" detection. For
those who need the refresher
on the movie "Minority Report", these systems - more black boxes than
real science - are prone to
abuse. Like the backscatter x-ray devices
that are now being boxed-up and taken out of major airports, it is time
to pull the plug
on these creepy tools for mass surveillance.
Privacy protection, open government, and cyber security. These issues
may not be
at the top of the list for the new administration, but they
should be near the top. And four years from now, we should expect progress.
Marc Rotenberg, "Election 2012 -- Privacy and Unfinished Business."
Huffington Post, Nov, 7, 2012
 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Holds First Public Meeting
EPIC participated in the President's
Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board's (PCLOB) initial public meeting November 2. The
Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007
established the five-member PCLOB as an independent agency to "analyze
and review actions the executive
branch takes to protect the Nation
from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced
with the need to protect
privacy and civil liberties."
In a prepared statement, EPIC urged the Board to investigate the
program activities of the Department
of Homeland Security and other
federal agencies that have failed to comply with the Privacy Act of
1974. As an example, EPIC singled
out the DHS Fusion Center programs,
which collect and retain data of questionable quality in possible
violation of the Privacy
Act, and, according to a Congressional report,
do not contribute to counterterrorism efforts. EPIC concluded that
Center program should be suspended until adequate training
is instituted and specific oversight procedures to prevent future
violations are installed. Additionally, any future funding of
Fusion Centers should be conditioned on meeting the training
and oversight procedures."
EPIC also drew the Board's attention to the issues surrounding the
TSA's airport body scanner program.
According to EPIC's statement, the
initial Privacy Impact Assessment prepared for the body scanner test
program failed to identify
numerous privacy risks to travelers prior to
deployment of the body scanners in all major airports. In 2010, EPIC
sued to have
the body scanner program suspended. The court responded by
ordering DHS to provide a public notice-and-comment rulemaking, which
will now take place in March 2013.
EPIC further recommended that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board review DHS programs
for adherence to the Privacy Act of 1974 and
eliminate the broad exemptions DHS has claimed under the Privacy Act.
Research Service: PCLOB
EPIC: Statement to PCLOB (Oct. 26, 2012)
US Senate Subcommittee: Report on Fusion Centers (Oct. 3, 2012)
EPIC: Information Fusion Centers and Privacy
EPIC: Spotlight on Surveillance
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
EPIC: Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission (Dec. 2003)
EPIC: The Privacy Act of 1974
EPIC: The 9/11 Commission Report
 Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Surveillance Standing
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments October
29 in Clapper v.
Amnesty International, a case challenging the interception of
communications of US persons under foreign intelligence
laws. A federal appeals court previously ruled in favor of a group of
plaintiffs, including human rights advocates,
journalists and attorneys,
and held that the financial and logistical costs they incurred in order
to avoid government surveillance
were sufficient to establish standing
under the Constitution. US Solicitor General Donald Verilli, arguing on
behalf of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence,
that plaintiffs could not establish a sufficiently concrete
injury because they did not know if they had been subject to
The surveillance in question is authorized under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008, which allows the
federal government to conduct mass surveillance of communications,
including communications of American citizens, without a warrant
particularized suspicion. Attorneys for Amnesty International argued
that such sweeping governmental surveillance is contrary
Fourth Amendment principles and threatens the privacy of all Americans,
particularly those engaged in international
In September 2012, EPIC, joined by 32 legal scholars and technical
experts and six privacy and open government
organizations, filed a
"friend of the court" brief in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs'
concerns were well-founded considering
the NSA's surveillance
capabilities and the US government's failure to establish sufficient
public reporting requirements for lawful
In May 2012, EPIC testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments
Act of 2008. EPIC
Executive Director Marc Rotenberg made a number of recommendations to
the Committee, including requiring public
dissemination of a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act report, similar to the reports released
for other forms of electronic
surveillance, and implementation of a
publication procedure for important decisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court.
US Supreme Court: Oral Argument Transcript in Clapper (Oct. 29, 2012)
Second Circuit Court: Decision in Clapper (Mar. 21, 2011)
EPIC et al.: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Clapper (Sept. 24, 2012)
EPIC: Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA
DNI James R. Clapper, Jr.: Brief in Clapper v. Amnesty (July 2012)
Amnesty International et al.: Brief in Clapper (Aug. 2012)
EPIC: Testimony Before US House re: FISA Amendments (May 31, 2012)
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
 Supreme Court Hears Challenges to Police 'Dog Sniffs'
The US Supreme Court has heard oral argument in two cases
the use of police drug-detection dogs. In Florida v. Jardines, the
defendant challenged the Miami Police Department's
warrantless use of
a drug-detection dog to sniff for drugs at his front door. In Florida
v. Harris, the defendant challenged the
physical search of his
automobile on the grounds that the preceding "alert" by a drug-
detection dog was not sufficient to establish
probable cause. Both
cases require the Court to consider the impact on Fourth Amendment
privacy rights when police use advanced
The Court first considered the use of dogs to detect contraband nearly
30 years ago in the case United
States v. Place. At the time, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor stated that a dog "alert" over seized luggage in an
airport does not
constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment
because it "discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a
item." In the 2005 case Illinois v. Caballes, the Court
upheld the use of drug-detection dogs to sniff lawfully detained
During the Jardines argument Justice Anthony
Kennedy made clear that he was unwilling to extend the so-called
into the realm of the home. "I just don't
think that works," he concluded during his first comment.
EPIC filed a "friend of the
court" brief in Florida v. Harris, arguing
that investigative tools like drug-detection dogs, airport body
sniffers, and digital intercept devices should be
used only to justify searches based on concrete evidence that they are
"When an agent uses an investigative technique to uncover
predicate facts used to justify a search," the brief states, "that
should be able to demonstrate that the technique is tested,
reliable, and has been properly used and maintained. Without such
there can be no probable cause." EPIC's brief particularly
focused on a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, which
highlighted significant reliability problems in forensic sciences due
to a lack of national standards. "The perfect search, like
infallible dog," EPIC said, "is a null set. "The Court will rule on
both Jardines and Harris sometime before the end of the
EPIC: Florida v. Harris
EPIC: Florida v. Jardines
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Harris (Aug. 31, 2012)
US Supreme Court: Oral Argument Transcript in Jardines (Oct. 31, 2012)
US Supreme Court: Oral Argument Transcript in Harris (Oct. 31, 2012)
 EPIC Comments on FTC Rent-to-Own Computer Spying Settlement
EPIC has submitted comments on settlements between the
Commission and seven "rent to own" companies over their illicit
surveillance of customers via third-party software
Without informing consumers, the rent-to own companies equipped the
computers with monitoring technology
from a company called DesignerWare
LLC. The monitoring software enabled DesignerWare to capture and
transmit back to the companies
not only the users' computer activity,
personally identifiable information and passwords, but also photographs
taken via the computers'
video cameras. According to the FTC
investigation, the software secretly captured "user names and passwords
for email accounts,
social media websites, and financial institutions;
Social Security numbers; medical records; private emails to doctors;
credit card statements; and webcam pictures of children,
partially undressed individuals, and intimate activities at home."
settlements prohibit the companies from using or licensing others
to use: (1) Any monitoring technology to secretly collect personal
from any computer rented to a customer; (2) Geolocational tracking
without explicit user consent; (3) Fradulent software registration
screens to gather consumers' personal information; (4) Improperly
obtained information for debt collection purposes. The companies
must delete or destroy all user data collected by the illegal
monitoring, and keep records that allow the FTC to monitor the
companies' compliance with the orders for the next 20 years.
EPIC's comments express support for the settlements, and also recommend
that the FTC require the companies to implement Fair Information
Practices similar to the White House's 2012 Consumer Privacy Bill
Rights. By requiring a full set of Fair Information Practices, EPIC
states, the Commission would put in place the baseline privacy
standards that are widely recognized around the world, thereby ensuring
that consumers' personal data is protected throughout the
lifecycle." EPIC also suggested that the Commission make the companies'
compliance reports publicly available to the greatest
and that it release the initial, unredacted assessment required by the
consent orders. Finally, EPIC encouraged
that FTC to remain mindful of
the fact that rent-to-own companies are debt traps for economically
disadvantaged consumers, so the
consent orders are protecting a
particularly vulnerable class. Finally, EPIC suggested that the FTC
"further investigate - perhaps
in a workshop format - the relationship
between privacy and inequality, i.e. the risk that low-income consumers
are more likely
to be subject to business practices that place at risk
EPIC routinely comments on the FTC's proposed settlements
privacy issues. EPIC's 2010 Google Buzz complaint provided the basis
for the FTC's investigation and subsequent settlement
improper disclosure of user information. The FTC's 2011 settlement
with Facebook followed from complaints filed
by EPIC and a coalition of
privacy and civil liberties organizations. EPIC also recently commented
on the FTC's proposed consent
order with MySpace in order to strengthen
the proposed settlement and to protect the interests of consumers.
EPIC: Comments to
FTC on Rent-to-Own Settlement (October 25, 2012)
FTC: Rent-To-Own Settlement Page
FTC: Text of Rent-to-Own Settlement (Oct. 2012)
White House: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (February 2012)
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
EPIC: In re Google Buzz
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
EPIC: Social Networking Privacy
 News in Brief
DHS Privacy Compliance Review Fails to Address Monitoring of Dissent
The Department of Homeland Security has released a new Privacy
Compliance Review of the agency's Social Media Monitoring Initiative.
As with previous Privacy Compliance Reviews, DHS found its
media monitoring program to be compliant with the self-developed
privacy requirements laid out in a 2011 Privacy Impact
Previously undisclosed documents obtained by EPIC through a FOIA
request and subsequent lawsuit revealed that DHS is
network and media organizations for dissent and criticism of the Agency.
Neither the current Privacy Compliance
Review, past reviews, nor the
initial Privacy Impact Assessment directly address EPIC's concern about
DHS's "dissent monitoring".
EPIC's lawsuit against the agency, which
seeks disclosure of records detailing the Agency's media monitoring
activities, is ongoing.
DHS: Privacy Review of Social Media Monitoring (Nov. 8, 2012)
DHS: Privacy Investigations & Compliance Reviews
DHS: Media Monitoring Capability Desktop Reference Binder (2011)
EPIC: FOIA Request re: DHS Media Monitoring (April 2011)
EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring
EPIC to Congress: Protect Privacy Against Drone Surveillance
EPIC participated in an October 25 Congressional hearing on the impact
of domestic drone use, held at Rice University in Houston, TX.
Representative Ted Poe (R-TX), sponsor of HR 6449, the "Air Travelers'
Bill of Rights Act of 2012," convened the hearing. Joining Rep. Poe
were Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Hank Johnson (D-GA), and
Adams (R-FL). EPIC Associate Litigation Counsel Amie Stepanovich
testified on the need for specific laws to limit drone surveillance
within the US. In a prepared statement, Stepanovich recommended a
warrant requirement for police drone surveillance as well as
limitations and transparency obligations for drone operators. In
February 2012, EPIC, joined by over 100 organizations,
members of the public, petitioned the FAA to begin a rulemaking on the
privacy impact of drone use.
Hearing on Domestic Drones (Oct. 25, 2012)
EPIC: Congressional Testimony on Drones (Oct. 25, 2012)
EPIC et al: Petition on Drone Use in US (Feb. 24, 2012)
US House: Air Travelers' Bill of Rights Act of 2012 (Sept. 20, 2012)
US Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
EPIC: UAVs and Drones
Lawmakers Gain 'Partial Glimpse' into Data Brokers' Business Practices
Members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus
the responses of several data brokers to an inquiry into their business
practices. Data brokers collect and sell
information to third parties, typically without the knowledge of the
consumers themselves. The lawmakers reported
that most of the
companies in the report did not consider themselves "data brokers," and
that "[m]any questions about how these
data brokers operate have been
left unanswered, particularly how they analyze personal information to
categorize and rate consumers."
Earlier in 2012, a report by the
Federal Trade Commission on consumer privacy called for legislation to
control the activities
of data brokers. In 2005, EPIC brought a
complaint against the data broker Choicepoint that ultimately produced
a $10 million settlement,
the largest in the FTC's history for a
violation of federal privacy law.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA): Report on Databrokers (Nov.
FTC: Report on Data Brokers and Consumer Privacy (March 2012)
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Email Privacy Case
The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments October 24 in US v. Hamilton,
case involving personal emails to a spouse sent from a
workplace computer. The court focused on the scope of "marital
the privacy of workplace email, and whether failing to
delete email after a change in an email "use policy" can constitute a
of privilege. EPIC argued in a "friend of the court" brief
that the retroactive application of a use policy as well as "a duty
to delete" would be unfair to users, and that "[w]orkplace use policy
alone should not eliminate an employee's reasonable expectation
privacy in personal communications."
Fourth Circuit Court: Audio of Arguments in Hamilton (Oct. 24, 2012)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in US v. Hamilton (Apr. 6, 2012)
EPIC: US v. Hamilton
EPIC: Workplace Privacy
 EPIC in the News
"Election 2012 -- Privacy and Unfinished Business." The Huffington
Post, Nov. 7, 2012.
"Smartcampaign: It's the Data, Stupid!" The Huffington Post, Nov.
"With Chairman's Likely Exit, Guessing Game Has Begun at the Federal
Trade Commission." National Journal, Nov. 2, 2012.
"'Don't Touch My Junk' Sneaks Into the Supreme Court." The New
Republic, Nov. 1, 2012.
"The Supreme Court Exposes Obama's Circular Logic on Wiretapping."
The New Republic, Oct. 29, 2012.
"Use of drones in community policing 'unchartered territory'." The
Houston Chronicle, Oct. 25, 2012.
For More EPIC in the News:
 Book Review: 'The Secret Lives of Codebreakers'
"The Secret Lives of Codebreakers: The Men and Women Who
Enigma Code at Bletchley Park," Sinclair McKay
In "The Secret Lives of Codebreakers," British journalist Sinclair
McKay combines letters, memoranda, and oral interviews taken
veterans of World War II-era British intelligence to create a human-
interest landscape of the site where the Nazis' Enigma
cracked. The book focuses on the Bletchley Park estate in
Buckinghamshire, UK, which was occupied by the Government Code
Cypher School (the branch of British intelligence that dealt with
cryptanalysis) at the onset of war. The book tracks the activity
Bletchley Park from its earliest days as the site of the "GC&CS"'s
main decryption operation through the last days of World
Bletchley Park housed so many of cryptography's major names - among
them, Alan Turing, Dilly Knox, and Donald Michie -
history is a source of delicious gossip about the personal lives
of famous codebreakers. But the book also provides
an array of
observations about the state of British military, politics, geography,
and socioeconomics in the early 1940s.
states that Bletchley Park was staffed almost entirely by middle-
and upper-class, "Oxbridge"-educated young men and women who had
pulled out of advanced coursework in languages or mathematics in
order to serve the war effort. Within the tired, frequently
Bletchley Park estate, GC&CS grew into a largely undefined, unplanned
outgrowth of British military intelligence, and the
officers who ran
Bletchley Park essentially improvised the entire operation. Individual
translators and cryptographers focused
on individual projects, but none
of the Bletchley Park staff was ever told how exactly they were
contributing to the war effort,
or even how they should approach
McKay's book is most successful when it explores the many tensions that
comprised life at Bletchley Park, particularly tensions between the
impoverished Buckinghamshire town and the wealthy university
who lived among them; the brilliance of the mathematicians and
linguists who worked at Bletchley Park, and their ignorance
progress of the war. For example, the secretive, eccentric and socially
indifferent Alan Turing was half of a superb
the pair's other half was Sarah Baring, who was reliably secretive about
her work because she had been
raised in an aristocratic household that
valued discretion, propriety, and reserve.
The great asset of relating the story of Bletchley
Park through first-
hand accounts, however, is also the book's greatest weakness. McKay
tries to allow his interviewees' recollections
to drive the book's
narrative, but he is only able to draw from limited source material.
More than 70 years have passed since the
onset of World War II. The
few surviving veterans whom McKay was able to contact were only able
to provide him with their outward
impressions and their own personal
experiences. As a result, the book wavers abruptly between McKay's
journalistic account of British
war history and his interviewees'
fragmented recollections of daily routines, attitudes, and atmosphere.
A good story of the British
contribution to cryptography through the
work at Bletchley Park can be fundamentally compelling, and McKay's
rendition is solid.
Furthermore, the human dimension provided by
McKay's interviews with the veteran cryptographers gives readers one of
possible windows into not only their lives but also the
rise of the culture that eventually led to the NSA and the British
By supplementing these interviews with excerpts from
contemporaneous letters and memoranda, and from biographies of
mathematicians, McKay gives the estate a memory and a
narrative comprised of many voices.
-- Julia Horwitz
"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
"Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: Reloading Data Protection."
23-25 January 2013, Brussels. For More information:
22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference. 5-6 March 2013,
Washington, DC. For More Information: Contact Chris Calabrese
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 and private-sector
infringement on constitutional values.
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 19.21------------------------