EPIC Alert 19.23
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 19.23 December 10, 2012
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 EPIC Urges User Vote for "Existing" Facebook Policy
 EPIC to Congress: Suspend Funding for Body Scanner Program
 EPIC: FTC Nominee Should Address Agency Privacy Settlement Process
 NASA Suffers More Data Breaches
 Senate Committee
Updates ECPA, Modifies Video Privacy Law
 News in Brief
 EPIC in the News
 EPIC Book Review: 'Cyberspace and National Security'
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
TAKE ACTION: Vote for EXISTING Facebook Documents!
VOTE Here: http://apps.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/
TWEET Your Vote: #ExistingDocuments on #Facebook http://bit.ly/VwTAVw
READ the Facebook Governance Docs: http://epic.org/redirect/120712-fb.html
SUPPORT EPIC: http://epic.org/donate
 EPIC Urges User Vote for "Existing" Facebook Policy
EPIC is urging all Facebook users to participate in the
Governance Vote. Facebook has proposed changes to site governance
policies that would end user voting, remove spam blocking,
personal information from Facebook with data from photo-blogging site
Instagram. A user vote "for EXISTING Documents"
fundamental changes to Facebook user privacy. Voting will end December
10 at 12:00pm Pacific Standard Time.
November 27 letter, EPIC and the Center for Digital Democracy
urged Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to withdraw the proposed changes,
which will both negatively affect user privacy and users' ability to
participate in site governance. "Because these proposed changes
privacy risks for users, may be contrary to law, and violate your
previous commitments to users about site governance, we
urge you to
withdraw the proposed changes," EPIC's letter states. Facebook is
subject to the terms of a November 2011 settlement
with the Federal
Trade Commission that prohibits the company from changing privacy
settings without users' affirmative consent
or misrepresenting the
privacy or security of users' personal information. The consent order
was prompted by complaints EPIC and
other consumer and privacy
organizations filed with the FTC in 2009 and 2010.
Since the settlement, EPIC has filed a number of
complaints with the
FTC, maintaining that Facebook continues to violate the settlement's
terms and that the FTC has not done enough
to prevent these violations.
In September, EPIC, joined by the Center for Digital Democracy, asked
the FTC to investigate whether
Facebook's data-matching arrangement
with data broker Datalogix violates the 2011 settlement. In June, EPIC
and several privacy
organizations filed a complaint over Facebook's
automated tagging of Facebook users through facial recognition
tagging is currently disabled for all users and
the European Union is requiring Facebook to stop the use of facial
software altogether and delete the data used for facial
Facebook: Facebook Governance Vote
EPIC: Letter to Facebook re: Governance Changes (Nov. 27, 2012)
FTC: Settlement with Facebook re: Privacy Changes
EPIC: Complaint with FTC re Facebook/Datalogix (Sept. 27, 2012)
EPIC: Complaint with FTC re: Facebook Face Recognition (Jun. 10, 2011)
EPIC: Comments to FTC on Facebook Facial Recognition
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
 EPIC to Congress: Suspend Funding for Body Scanner
EPIC has sent a letter to US Representatives
Mike Rogers (R-AL) and
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), asking Congress to suspend funding for the
airport body scanner program until
the TSA has completed a court-
ordered public rulemaking.
The letter follows a November House oversight hearing by the
on Transportation Security, during which Subcommittee
members learned that the TSA had shipped millions of dollars' worth of
backscatter X-ray devices back to warehouses. Previously, the
TSA had stated that it was moving the devices to smaller airports
efficiency reasons. EPIC's letter to Reps. Rogers and Jackson Lee
questions why "The TSA website has failed to explain the
contradiction[s]" between statement and fact.
EPIC's letter also covers a number of other concerns raised in the
often using direct quotes from the interchanges between
Subcommittee members and TSA administrators as examples The letter
that the TSA has "misled the public" on a number of crucial
issues, including scanner safety, privacy, efficacy and taxpayer
During the hearing, representatives from DHS claimed that the
agency did not underestimate the public's privacy concerns over the
backscatter devices. EPIC's letter points out that the agency made this
claim "[d]espite two petitions from a broad coalition of
to Secretary Napolitano, a national protest, thousands of complaints,
and a court order from the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals to undertake
EPIC's letter concludes,"In light of the ongoing problems with the
TSA's body scanner
technology, continued public concerns, and the
agency's failure to undertake the required rulemaking," EPIC recommends
"* Suspend all funding for new body scanner devices and equipment
until notice-and-comment rulemaking has been completed.
"* Require TSA to make publicly available all results of tests
performed on body scanners.
"* Require TSA to make
publicly available an accounting of the
money spent on airport screening technology as well as an
evaluation by the
agency as to the effectiveness of these
The Washington, DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the TSA to
conduct a public rulemaking on the body scanners by March 2013.
Backscatter X-ray devices are already prohibited in European airports.
EPIC: Letter to Congress re: Body Scanners (Nov. 28, 2012)
US House Subcommittee: Hearing on Body Scanners (Nov. 15, 2012)
TSA/DHS: Joint Written Testimony for Scanner Hearing (Nov. 15, 2012)
EPIC: Petition to DHS re: Body Scanners (May 31, 2009)
EPIC: Petition to DHS re: Body Scanners (Apr. 21, 2010)
EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners
EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks
EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security - Body Scanners
 EPIC: FTC Nominee Should Address Agency Privacy Settlement
EPIC has submitted a letter to the US Senate Commerce
recommending that Congress require the Federal Trade Commission to
consider more carefully the public's views on proposed
settlements. EPIC also recommended that the FTC require compliance with
the US Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights for companies
When the FTC settles a case against a company that has violated the FTC
Act, the FTC's own compliance
rules require that the agency post the
proposed settlements for public comment. After a 30-day comment period,
the FTC Commissioners
reconvene to discuss the public comments and vote
on whether or not to incorporate public suggestion into the final order.
according to EPIC's letter, "Although the Commission has
solicited public comments for proposed settlement agreements in twenty-
one cases involving privacy violations over the past two years, it has
never modified a settlement in response to public comment."
EPIC's letter also notes, "[I]n spite of its public support for the
Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, the Commission has failed
compliance with the CPBR as a requirement for companies that violate
consumers' privacy." The CPBR, created by the Obama
early 2012, is not a law, but guidelines for agencies and companies
when they consider best privacy practices.
EPIC's letter recommended
that the FTC require these companies to abide by the CPBR.
EPIC sent the letter to the Commerce Committee
in anticipation of the
nomination hearings of Dr. Joshua Wright to be an FTC Commissioner.
Wright was nominated by President Obama
in September 2012 to fill a
Republican spot on the Commission, and his nomination hearings took
place December 4. EPIC's letter
emphasizes that EPIC takes "no
position" on Wright's nomination, but rather provides Congress with an
opportunity "to discuss the
Commissions' practices and to assess
whether the FTC is sufficiently responsive to public concerns about
privacy." The letter also
encourages Congress to ask Wright to respond
specifically to EPIC's suggestions regarding public comments on
reports and CPBR compliance.
EPIC routinely submits comments to the FTC on proposed consent orders,
most recently in October 2012
on agency's settlement with web-tracking
software company Compete, Inc. EPIC has also recommended previously
that the FTC promote
the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights in privacy
EPIC: Letter to Senate Commerce Committee (Dec. 3, 2012)
The White House: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (Feb. 2012)
The White House: Joshua Wright Nomination Announcement (Sept. 10, 2012)
EPIC: Comments to FTC on Compete Inc. (Nov. 19, 2012)
US Senate: Commerce Committee
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
 NASA Suffers More Data Breaches
NASA has announced that an October 31 theft of an unencrypted laptop
compromised the personal information of a "large number" of
employees and contractors. An agency web page states that a NASA
employee's laptop was stolen out of his car. The laptop
protected, but not encrypted, making data potentially accessible. A
similar theft earlier in 2012 exposed the data
of thousands of Kennedy
Space Center employees, and in March a NASA laptop was stolen that
contained sensitive personally identifiable
Social Security numbers, birth dates, and even college GPAs.
According to the space agency, all NASA laptops
must have full-disk
encryption by the end of 2012. Until encryption is added, "effective
immediately, no NASA-issued laptops containing
can be removed from a NASA facility unless whole disk encryption
software is enabled or the sensitive files
are individually encrypted."
NASA also states it is working with a data-breach consulting firm to
assess and mitigate potential
These events are particularly significant in light of a 2010 US Supreme
Court case, NASA v. Nelson, in which a federal
NASA's broad collection of personal information. The Court ruled that
NASA had adequate privacy protections
in place under the Privacy Act.
EPIC had filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of contractor
Robert Nelson, arguing that
legal protections were insufficient and
that NASA's systems were vulnerable to data breaches. EPIC's brief
maintained that individuals,
including NASA employees, have a right to
informational privacy and a Court decision in favor of NASA would
"require these scientists
to disclose sensitive, personal information
that is insufficiently protected and at substantial risk of disclosure."
the NASA employee named in the case, is among the
individuals whose information could have been compromised in the latest
NASA: Announcement of Data Breach (Nov. 13, 2012)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court Brief" in NASA v. Nelson (Aug. 9, 2010)
US Supreme Court: Opinion in NASA v. Nelson (Jan. 19, 2011)
EPIC: NASA v. Nelson
EPIC: Identity Theft
 Senate Committee Updates ECPA, Modifies Video Privacy
The US Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill
that updates the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and modifies the Video
Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Both laws,
passed in the 1980s, have not
kept pace with advances in Internet technology. ECPA governs law
enforcement's ability to surveil
communications and conduct wiretaps.
The VPPA prevents the disclosure of consumer video watching and renting
habits without consent.
Under the revisions to ECPA, law enforcement must obtain a search
warrant before accessing email or other private electronic
Currently, no warrant is required for law enforcement
to obtain remotely stored email that is more than 180 days old.
to the VPPA allow users to provide "blanket consent"
to the disclosure of their video viewing records. Under current law,
must consent to each individual disclosure. The new amendment
allows services such as Netflix to disclose viewer records with only
one-time consent from the account holder. An amendment by Senator Diane
Feinstein (D-CA), adopted by the Committee, has limited
consent to two years.
EPIC favors more extensive updates to ECPA. Specifically, EPIC has
argued that locational information
should also be protected by a
warrant requirement. In addition, EPIC favors strong requirements for
prompt notification following
In January 2012 EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg testified before
the US Senate against weakening the consent
provision of the VPPA,
which has been one of the strongest statutes protecting consumers'
personally identifiable information,
"The Video Privacy Protection Act
is a model privacy law. It is technology neutral and focuses on the
collection and use of personal
information," EPIC stated. "The debate
over online privacy and Netflix does not exist in a vacuum. It is
clear that only privacy laws actually safeguard
the privacy rights of Internet users."
US Senate: Bill to Update ECPA and VPPA
EPIC: Senator Feinstein's Amendment to HR 2471
EPIC: Testimony of Marc Rotenberg on VPPA (Jan. 31, 2012)
EPIC: Testimony of Marc Rotenberg on ECPA (June 24, 2010)
EPIC: Electronic Communications Privacy Act
EPIC: Video Privacy Protection Act
 News in Brief
UPDATE: EPIC Appeals NSA's Withholding of Cybersecurity Directive
EPIC has appealed a decision by the National Security Agency
EPIC's Freedom of Information Act Request for the public release of
Presidential Policy Directive 20. The Policy Directive expands the
NSA's cybersecurity authority
and has raised concerns about government
surveillance of the Internet. EPIC's FOIA appeal points to numerous
substantive and procedural
defects in the NSA's response, and
highlights the importance of public discussion of cybersecurity
authority. The NSA has 10 days
to respond to EPIC's appeal.
EPIC: Appeal in NSA FOIA Case (Nov. 27, 2012)
NSA: Official Denial of EPIC FOIA Request (Nov. 20, 2012)
EPIC: FOIA Request to NSA re: Policy Directive 20 (Nov. 14, 2012)
EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications
EPIC: EPIC v. NSA - Cybersecurity Authority
EPIC to Defense Department: Maintain Strong Open Government Rules
EPIC has submitted extensive comments to the Defense Logistics
a component within the US Department of Defense, opposing changes to
the Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program.
The agency's proposals will substantially alter FOIA requirements and
modify key terms governing FOIA processing,
general FOIA policy,
exemptions under the FOIA, and fee waivers. EPIC's comments argue that
several of the proposals are contrary
to law, exceed the scope of the
agency's authority, and should be withdrawn. EPIC further stated that
the proposals contravene
"the express statements" of the President and
Attorney General concerning government transparency. EPIC routinely
on proposed changes to FOIA regulations, warning
agencies not to erect new obstacles to those seeking information about
The statement to the DLA was prepared with the assistance
of students at the Georgetown University Law Center studying open
EPIC: Comments to DLA re: FOIA Changes (Dec. 5, 2012)
Federal Register: List of Proposed DLA FOIA Changes (Oct. 12, 2012)
DLA: Proposal for FOIA Changes (Jul. 1, 2011)
EPIC: Comments to DOJ re Proposed FOIA Changes (Oct. 18, 2011)
Georgetown U. Law Center: Class on Open Government
EPIC: Open Government
MA High Court Allows Limited Warrantless Search of Cellphone Call Logs
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that
warrant is required to check the recent call list of a cellphone seized
during a lawful arrest. However, the Court's
decision in Commonwealth v.
Phifer emphasizes that the ruling is narrow and fact-specific. The
Court does "not suggest that the
assessment necessarily would be the
same on different facts, or in relation to a different type of intrusion
into a more complex
cellular telephone or other information storage
device." In the Phifer case, police witnessed a drug deal, arrested the
and then checked the phone's call log for evidence of recent
drug sales. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court compared searching
the phone in these circumstances to searching a "prescription bottle"
during a drug arrest under the assumption that a bottle "carried
this manner would contain contraband, and, most probably, a controlled
substance". In 2009, EPIC filed a "friend of the court"
brief in the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Connolly. The
Court ultimately ruled that sensitive data
obtained from GPS tracking
requires a search warrant, a decision reiterated by the US Supreme
Court in US v. Jones. EPIC also submitted
a brief in that case.
MA Supreme Judicial Court: Decision in Phifer (Dec. 5, 2012)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Connolly (Apr. 20, 2009)
EPIC: Commonwealth v. Connolly
EPIC: US v. Jones
EPIC: Locational Privacy
Senate Committee to Consider Location Privacy Bill
The US Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to consider S. 1223, the
Location Privacy Act of 2011, sponsored by Senator Al Franken (D-MN).
The bill would establish important privacy protections for
users and require affirmative consent for cellphone service providers
to collect or disclose user locations. EPIC has
new protections for location data as part of the update of federal law.
EPIC also has filed comments with
the Federal Communications Commission
supporting guidelines for the protection of location data under the
GovTrack: Location Privacy Act of 2011
Sen. Al Franken
EPIC: Statement Before US Senate on ECPA (Jun. 24, 2010)
EPIC: Comments to FCC on Locational Privacy (2001)
EPIC: Locational Privacy
EPIC: Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Pew Survey Finds Most Parents Concerned about Children's Online Privacy
A new report from the Pew Research Center and Harvard
Berkman Center for Internet & Society finds that 81% of parents are
concerned about how much information advertisers
can learn about their
child's online behavior. 69% of parents of teenagers are concerned
about how their child's online activity
might affect their future
academic or employment opportunities. 63% of parents of children ages
12-13 say they are "very" concerned
about their child's interactions
with people they do not know online. Many parents reported taking
steps to address these risks,
such as talking to their children or
helping them configure privacy settings. The Federal Trade Commission
is considering new privacy
rules to strengthen the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act. EPIC strongly supports the proposed changes.
Report on Children and Online Privacy (Nov. 2012)
Pew Internet and American Life Project
EPIC: Comments to FTC on COPPA Rule Review (Sept. 24, 2012)
Harvard University: Berkman Center for Internet & Society
EPIC: Children's Online Privacy
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
 EPIC in the News
Computerworld, Dec. 4, 2012.
"Facebook Invites Users to Vote on Proposed Data Changes." Business
Week, Dec. 3, 2012.
"Senate panel OKs update to communications privacy law." Los Angeles
Times, Nov. 30, 2012.
"Yet Another Shift In Facebook Policies Raises Privacy Concerns." NPR's
All Things Considered, Nov. 29, 2012.
"FAA Delays Creating Drone Test Sites Due to Privacy Concerns."
Nextgov.com, Nov. 29, 2012.
"Ex-NASA Scientist's Data Fears Come True." The New York Times, Nov.
"Regulator forces Facebook to change data policy." MarketingWeek UK,
Nov. 28, 2012.
"Facebook User Backlash Over Policy Change." The Wall Street Journal,
Nov. 27, 2012.
"Privacy groups ask Facebook CEO Zuckerberg to withdraw policy
changes." Examiner.com, Nov. 27, 2012.
"Data cops: Facebook privacy plans must be 'modified'." The Register,
Nov. 27, 2012.
"Two consumer groups urge Facebook to back off privacy changes." Los
Angeles Times, Nov. 26, 2012.
For More EPIC in the News:
 Book Review: 'Cyberspace and National Security'
"Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities,
in a Virtual World," Derek S. Reveron, Ed.
In order to assemble "Cyberspace and National Security", US Naval War
College Professor Derek S. Reveron commissioned essays from
information scientists, and policy analysts on one or both of the
title's topics - cyberspace and national security.
Each essay is
written by a different author and examines its subject from a different
angle. As a result, "Cyberspace and National
Security" casts a wide net,
with varying but ultimately complementary results.
The volume's first essay, "Speculative Security"
by Patrick Jagoda,
is essentially a cultural primer of the evolution of the concept as
well as the practice of "cyberspace". "Operational
Cyber Attack and Cyber Exploitation" by Herbert Lin dissects the
definition of "rivalry" in modern warfare. The
"China in Cyberspace" by Nigel Inkster, explores Internet censorship in
China. Often the essays are cognizant
of each other, and one author will
refer to another author's contribution to the book. This mutual self-
awareness creates a richer
portrait of the inextricable connections
between online connectivity and cyber-attacks against US interests.
A central focus of
"Cyberspace and National Security" is the concept of
"networks." Each essay contributes to a greater understanding of
communication, and the ways in which "cyber networks"
have eroded our conception of boundaries. In "Operational
in Cyber Attack and Cyber Exploitation," Herbert Lin
explains the comparative advantages and disadvantages of cyber attacks
"kinetic," or real-space, attacks. He highlights how attacks
against targets located in other countries avoid the logistical problems
typically associated with kinetic attacks:
"An attacker can also clandestinely alter data stored on the network
to impact future
planning. For example, the logistics deployment
plan for an adversary's armed forces may be driven by a set of
that describe the appropriate arrival sequence of
various items (food, fuel, vehicles, and so on). A planner relying
on a corrupted
database may well find that deployed forces have too
much of certain items and not enough of others. The planner's
in the integrity of the database may also be affected."
Particularly intriguing are the essays that explore writing's
to the virtual world. "Speculative Security" explains the
evolution of the prefix "cyber," and discusses the culture that has
around the terms "cyberspace," "cyberpunk," and "cybersex."
Jagoda details both the panic and the idealism that emerge when authors
write about cyberspace, and outlines the ways in which both reactions
rest on the same set of misconceptions. Nikolas K. Gvosdev's
Goes Digital" plumbs Russia's cyber capabilities by explaining the
vocabulary and terminology that have arisen around
use. "China in Cyberspace" extensively cites Chinese newspaper
articles, examining not only the phenomenon of
censorship, but also the public discourse about Internet censorship.
In other words, online networks also give
rise to an interconnected
system of language that mimics them. The emergence of the "iazyk
padonkov" Russian internet vernacular,
or the near-universal usage of
the prefix "cyber," demonstrate how linguistic networks unite Internet
users as much as the actual
computers do, and these two networks depend
on and strengthen each other.
Ultimately, Cyberspace and National Security is itself
a network of
information. It is not a complete vision of either cyberspace or
national security; such a volume would need to be
much larger than a
set of 13 short essays. The pockets of knowledge that are explored and
explained in the book are well-crafted,
but so divergent that they give
the impression of having been chosen at random. However, where the
essays do not coalesce into
a coherent whole, they nevertheless remain
interconnected. They share each others' vocabulary, data referents, and
intellectual ambition, so that what might otherwise
have been a jumble of
facts is sorted into a de facto organized distributed information system.
-- 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
"Online Privacy: Consenting to your Future." 21-22 March 2013,
Portomaso, Malta. Abstract for Papers due 14 December 2012. For
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 19.23------------------------