EPIC Alert 19.09
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 19.09 May 10, 2012
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 Google Releases "Spy-Fi" Report After EPIC FOIA Request to FCC
 EPIC Appeals Denial in Surveillance Export
FOIA, Files Follow-Up
 EPIC Files Suit for FBI "StingRay" Cell Phone Tracking Documents
 Classified Report Finds Vulnerabilities
in Body Scanner Program
 Congress, CA Consider Bills to Protect Employee Facebook Passwords
 EPIC in the News
 Book Review:
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
EPIC Annual Champion of Freedom
Awards Dinner, with Host Dahlia
Lithwick. June 11, 2012, The Fairfax at Embassy Row, Washington, DC.
For More Information: http://epic.org/june11/.
 Google Releases "Spy-Fi" Report After EPIC FOIA Request
Shortly after EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the
Federal Communications Commission for the unredacted version of the
FCC's report on Google Spy-Fi, Google has
released a mostly unredacted
version of the report.
In May 2007, as part of Google's initial collection of Street View
Google deployed special vehicles, equipped with digital cameras
and other devices, to capture images in designated locations in
countries worldwide. Using hidden Internet receivers, Google "Street
View vehicles" also collected a vast amount of data from
private home and business Wi-Fi networks. Google simultaneously
collected MAC addresses (the unique device ID for Wi-Fi
network SSIDs (user-assigned network ID names) tied to location
information for private wireless networks, and Wi-Fi
which included emails, passwords, usernames and web site URLs.
On April 13, the FCC released a highly redacted
version of this report,
which the agency believed concluded the investigation into the Google
Spy-Fi matter. EPIC almost immediately
filed a FOIA request, and
Google released the unredacted document on April 28.
The Federal Communications Commission's original
version of the report
withheld many relevant details about Google's interception of Wi-Fi
data. The report's new, unredacted belies
Google's prior statements
that a "rogue engineer" was responsible for the payload data collection.
Instead, it indicates that Google
intentionally designed the Street
View code to intercept payload data for business purposes. The report
also reveals that many
supervisors and engineers within Google reviewed
the code and the design documents associated with the project, and
potential privacy issues even when flagged by engineers.
EPIC continues to press for more details regarding Google's interception
of Wi-Fi data by seeking several categories of related documents from
the FCC, as well as documents related to the Department of
investigation of Google Street View.
EPIC: FCC Investigation of Google Streetview
FCC: Redacted Version of Google Street View Notice (Apr. 13, 2012)
FCC: Unredacted Version of Google Street View Notice (Apr. 28, 2012)
EPIC: FOIA Request to the FCC re: Street View Decision (Apr. 18, 2012)
EPIC: Google Street View
 EPIC Appeals Denial in Surveillance Export FOIA, Files
EPIC has appealed the Department of Commerce's
denial of a Freedom of
Information Act request that sought records about US companies' sale
of surveillance technology to repressive regimes like Syria and Yemen.
has also filed a new FOIA request with Commerce for records
related to the agency's investigation US company Blue Coat Systems,
which sold surveillance devices to the Syrian government. US export
rules require companies to seek a license for the export of
under certain circumstances.
EPIC filed the initial FOIA request on March 18. EPIC also requested
from the Department
of Commerce any reports made by US companies
under the "Wassenaar Arrangement," a voluntary system through which
states," including the US, attempt to "ensure that
transfers of" certain goods, including surveillance products, "do not
to the development or enhancement of military capabilities
which undermine these goals, and are not diverted to support such
The Department of Commerce responded to EPIC's request by claiming no
knowledge of the existence of Wassenaar Arrangement reports,
refused EPIC all commercial licenses under a statute that allows for
the withholding of "information obtained for the purpose
concerning, license applications." EPIC's appeal notes that FOIA
requires all agencies to conduct a "segregability analysis"
disclose "all reasonably segregable, nonexempt portions of the
requested record(s)." The appeal also argues that in previous
involving similar requests, the agency had turned over aggregate data
about export licenses. "The failure to adequately justify
that no segregable portions of records exist violates FOIA,
especially given the past practice of releasing aggregate
response to substantially similar requests," the appeal states.
EPIC's second FOIA request to the Department of Commerce
information about the agency's own investigation of certain US
companies that sold surveillance technology to repressive
Recent reports have indicated that Syrian officials used devices
manufactured by Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, CA, to
potentially block Syrian Internet traffic in October 2011. After
investigating, the Commerce Department concluded
that two individuals
at Blue Coat had "act[ed] contrary to the national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States",
and Blue Coat was added to the
"Entity List," which limits the company's ability to trade with other
US companies. EPIC's second
FOIA submission argues that EPIC's request
was made more relevant by the passage of a recent executive order
authorizing US officials
to impose sanctions against persons involved
in the use of information and communications technology to facilitate
abuses in Syria and Iran.
EPIC: FOIA Appeal of Export License Request (Apr. 26, 2012)
EPIC: Initial FOIA Request for Export Licenses (Mar. 28, 2012)
EPIC: FOIA Request for Investigation Documents (Apr. 26, 2012)
Wash. Post: Article on US Export of Surveillance Tech (Nov. 17, 2011)
White House: Exec. Order on Surveillance Technology (Apr. 23, 2012)
EPIC: Freedom of Information Act
 EPIC Files Suit for FBI "StingRay" Cell Phone Tracking
EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the Federal
Bureau of Investigation
under the Freedom of Information Act for documents related to the US
Government's use of "StingRay" technology. StingRay devices, commonly
referred to as an "IMSI Catchers"
or "cell-site simulators," enable the
location, interception, and hijacking of a mobile phone's signal
source. EPIC is seeking
documents specifically related to law
enforcement's warrantless use of this technology to locate crime
The FBI has been
using StingRay technology for more than 15 years, but
the devices are now inexpensive enough to be used by local law
or private entities.
EPIC originally submitted a FOIA request to the FBI on February 10. The
agency confirmed receipt of EPIC's
request but has otherwise failed to
respond as required by law. EPIC had requested expedited processing of
the initial FOIA request
because of the "particular urgency for the
public to obtain information about location tracking technology, given
the heated debate"
over the US Supreme Court's decision in US v. Jones.
StingRay technology determines a mobile phone's location by "mimicking"
cell phone tower and pinging the target mobile phone as well as other
devices in the vicinity. The target phone responds to the
device, and, by measuring signal strength from a variety of locations,
StingRay can triangulate the target phone's precise
The FBI used a StingRay device in the investigation of a suspected tax-
fraud ring in Arizona. That case, United States
v. Rigmaiden, has been
pending in the District Court of Arizona for nearly three years. The
defendant had requested discovery of
StingRay technology capabilities
and uses against him; in response, the government conceded that the
technology is sufficiently
intrusive to constitute a search, but denied
that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
places or items
EPIC: Complaint Against FBI re: StingRay (Apr. 26, 2012)
EPIC: Initial FOIA Request to FBI (Feb. 10, 2012)
EPIC: EPIC v. FBI (StingRay)
US District Court of Arizona: US v. Rigmaiden (Oct. 24, 2011)
EPIC: US v. Jones
EPIC: Locational Privacy
 Classified Report Finds Vulnerabilities in Body Scanner
The Department of Homeland Security's Office of
the Inspector General
has completed an investigation into the effectiveness of the body
scanner program as deployed in airports
for passenger screening. The
unclassified summary of the classified final report notes that several
vulnerabilities were found
in the program, which has already cost US
taxpayers more than $87 million. The vulnerabilities were not listed in
DHS has indicated that the full report consists of "Sensitive Security
Information" (SSI) and will not be released to the
public. EPIC has
challenged the SSI designation in another case against the
Transportation Security Administration, arguing that
SSI is an improper
standard for classification. EPIC has asserted that the SSI statute
"identifies a broad, general danger, and
fails to enumerate what
information should be withheld in order to mitigate that danger."
In 2011, after extensive testing, the
German government decided not to
deploy body scanners at German airports. German Interior Minister Hans-
Peter Friedrich said in
an official statement that the tests
demonstrated that the body scanners were not effective enough for
nationwide rollout, citing
the number of false positives produced by
the devices. Italy also removed the scanners from airports in late
after repeated testing that the scanners were both
"inconvenient and inaccurate." Similarly, the European Commission has
that body scanners raise "several serious fundamental rights and
health concerns," and has recommended less intrusive security measures.
EPIC has advocated against airport body scanners since their
introduction in US airports. As a result of a lawsuit brought by
against the Department of Homeland Security, the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in 2011 that the Transportation Safety Administration
violated federal law by installing body scanners in airports as primary
screening devices without first soliciting public comment.
separate lawsuit against DHS, EPIC has filed a motion of summary
judgment requesting that the agency be forced to disclose
detailing radiation testing results, agency fact sheets on body scanner
radiation risks, and an image produced by the
OIG: TSA Penetration Testing of Advanced Imaging Technology
German Interior Ministry: Press Release on Scanners (Sept. 2, 2011)
Italian Civil Aviation Authority
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
EPIC: EPIC v. TSA (Body Scanner Modifications) (Oct. 4, 2011)
 Congress, CA Consider Bills to Protect Employee Facebook
US Representatives Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Jan
Schakowsky (D-IL) have
introduced the "Social Networking Online Protection Act," a bill that
would prohibit employers, colleges,
universities, and K-12 schools from
demanding the usernames or passwords of employees' or students' social
media accounts. Similar
legislation has been introduced in California.
In March, Maryland became the first US state to ban employers from
or applicants for social networking passwords.
Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) have
asked the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the US Department
of Justice to investigate the practice.
According to recent reports, employers
have increasingly requested
social-network and email account passwords from job applicants in order
to gain access to private information
such as personal photos,
biographical details, and private messages. This practice can also
provide access to information that
employers are prohibited by law from
requesting, including political affiliation, sexual orientation,
religion, and marital status.
Maryland's bill was introduced after
Robert Collins, an employee at the state's Department of Public Safety
and Correctional Services,
was asked to turn over his Facebook password
as part the reinstatement process as a corrections officer.
Employers who violate
the House bill would be subject to a $10,000
civil penalty. Representative Engel stated, "[w]e must draw the line
define what is private. No one would feel comfortable
going to a public place and giving out their username and passwords to
strangers. They should not be required to do so at work, at
school, or while trying to obtain work or an education. This is a
of personal privacy and makes sense in our digital world."
EPIC has a longstanding interest in workplace and social media privacy.
EPIC recently filed a "friend of the court" brief in US v. Hamilton,
urging the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold employee
in personal emails. EPIC's brief argued that employees in the modern
workplace routinely communicate about private matters
others, and that an employee's privacy interest cannot be retroactively
waived, as the lower court suggested.
US House: Social Networking On-line Protection Act (HR 5050)
CA State Legislature: Social Media Privacy Act (SB 1349)
MD General Assembly: Senate Bill 433
Sen. Richard Blumenthal: Press Release on Password Bill (Mar. 25, 2012)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in US v. Hamilton (Apr. 6, 2012)
EPIC: United States v. Hamilton
EPIC: Social Networking Privacy
EPIC: Workplace Privacy
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
 News in Brief
EPIC Stresses Need For Privacy Evaluation in Drone Testing
In May 8 comments to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), EPIC
emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in drone
operations, and recommended the development of privacy protections
before drones are more widely deployed in the US. The FAA's Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking set out proposed criteria for drone testing,
Congress has tasked the FAA with facilitating the use of drones in the
domestic airspace. In February, EPIC, joined by a
coalition of more
than 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, petitioned
the FAA to conduct a rulemaking on the
privacy implications of domestic
EPIC: Comments to FAA on Drone Operation (May 8, 2012)
FAA: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Drones (Mar. 9, 2012)
US Congress: FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (HR 658)
Federal Register: RFC on Drone Test Sites (Mar. 9, 2012)
EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA on Drone Use (Feb. 24, 2012)
EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
Terms of Service Grant Google Broad Rights over Google Drive User Data
Google's Terms of Service, which govern Google Drive,
based file storage platform, give the company the right to "reproduce,
modify, create derivative works" using uploaded
content, as well as to
"publicly perform, [and] publicly display" files. In 2009, EPIC asked
the Federal Trade Commission to require
privacy safeguards for Google's
cloud-based services. At the time, EPIC cited previously discovered
privacy and security flaws,
including one that exposed user-generated
Google Docs content to unauthorized Google Docs users.
Google: Terms of Service
EPIC: Complaint to FTC re: Cloud Computing (Mar. 17, 2009)
Google Blog: Post on Security Flaws (Mar. 9, 2009)
EPIC: Cloud Computing and Privacy
FOIA "Ombudsman" Releases Open Government Report
In response to demands from Congress, the Office of Government
Services (OGIS) has released a long-delayed report with
recommendations to improve the administration of the Freedom of
Information Act. The report addresses several FOIA processing issues,
but doesn't examine the significant issue of delays in FOIA processing,
well as efforts by agencies, such as the Department of Justice, to
create new obstacles for FOIA requestors. Nor did OGIS address
pending request to determine whether the Department of Homeland
Security's practice of vetting FOIA requests by political
OGIS: Recommendations for Improving FOIA procedures (Apr. 24, 2012)
Senate Judiciary Committee: Hearing on FOIA (Mar. 13, 2012)
EPIC: Comments re: proposed DOJ FOIA Regulations (Oct. 18, 2011)
EPIC: House Testimony on DHS FOIA Request Compliance (Mar. 31, 2011)
EPIC: Litigation Docket
Flawed Cybersecurity Bill Passes House without Privacy, FOIA Safeguards
The US House of Representatives has passed the Cyber
Information Protection Act, or "CISPA", a cybersecurity bill that
allows the government to obtain detailed Internet
from the private sector. The bill preempts established privacy
protections in other federal laws, and opens the
door for increased
surveillance of individuals within the US. CISPA also creates a new
Freedom of Information Act exemption, which will reduce government
transparency and accountability. In a March 12 statement to the Senate,
EPIC stated that
the Freedom of Information Act provides the public
with important information about network security, and warned that the
National Security Agency has become
a "black hole" for public
information about cybersecurity.
US House: CISPA
US House: Final Roll Call on CISPA (Apr. 26, 2012)
EPIC: Statement to US Senate on FOIA (Mar. 12, 2012)
US Senate: Hearing on FOIA (Mar. 13, 2012)
EPIC: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
EPIC: EPIC v. NSA (FOIA for NSA Cybersecurity Authority)
EPIC: EPIC v. NSA (FOIA for Google/NSA Relationship)
FISA Orders Up, National Security Letters Down, No Request Denied
According to the 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Report, released April 30 by the Justice Department, the DOJ submitted
1,745 applications to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, a
10.5% increase over 2010. Of the 1,745 FISA search applications, 1,676
concerned electronic surveillance.
The FISA court did not deny any
applications, though it did modify 30. Also in 2011, the FBI made
16,511 National Security Letter
requests for information pertaining to
7,201 different US persons, a substantial decrease from the 24,287
national security letter
requests concerning 14,212 U.S. persons in
2010. The Justice Department's annual report on FISA is far less
extensive than the
annual wiretap report released by the Administrative
Office of the US Courts. EPIC has previously recommended greater
for the FISA Court.
US Justice Dept: 2011 FISA Report (Apr. 30, 2012)
Administrative Office of the United States Courts: 2010 Wiretap Report
EPIC: Comments to FISC on Proposed Rule Changes (Oct. 4, 2010)
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2011
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2011
MySpace Settles With FTC Over Deceptive Practices Complaint
The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with the
networking service MySpace over charges that MySpace allowed
advertisers to access users' personally identifying information
promising to keep such information private. Advertisers were able to
access users' unique "Friend ID," and link this identifier
personal information. The settlement requires MySpace to implement a
comprehensive privacy program, submit to independent
refrain from privacy misrepresentations. A Request for Public Comments
is available online until June 8, 2012.
Press Release on Settlement with MySpace (May 8, 2012)
FTC: Settlement with MySpace
FTC: Request for Public Comments on MySpace Settlement
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
EPIC: Social Networking Privacy
 EPIC in the News
"Homeland Security Concedes Airport Body Scanner 'Vulnerabilities'."
Wired, May 7, 2012.
"Facebook's power play." Politico, May 7, 2012.
"Suit hits Pentagon over huge 2011 data breach." The Boston Globe,
May 5, 2012.
"Government Surveillance Requests Up In 2011, Report Says." The
Huffington Post, May 4, 2012.
"Congress Should Grill the FCC Over Redacted Google Wi-Fi Snooping
Report." Wired, April 30, 2012.
"Data Harvesting at Google Not a Rogue Act, Report Finds." The New
York Times, April 28, 2012.
"Exclusive: Google releases FCC report on Street View probe." Los
Angeles Times, April 28, 2012.
For More EPIC in the News:
 Book Review: 'Open Government'
"Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in
Practice," Daniel Lathrop & Laurel Ruma
"Open Government" is a beautiful book. It is beautiful to look at,
beautiful to read, and beautiful to contemplate, particularly
readers whose passions converge on government transparency, open-
source technology, and freedom of information. Clean white
typography, and the minimalist writing style we've come to expect from
the best of O'Reilly & Associates books allow
this talented and
experienced group of writers, culled from both Washington and Silicon
Valley, to clearly present their visions
for a more responsive and
accountable government, guided by a more informed and participatory
"Open Government" is
also a hopeful book. Editors Daniel Lathrop and
Laurel Ruma, both journalists and open-government advocates, genuinely
that technology-based collaborative government is realistic and
feasible. Lathrop and Ruma compare "open government" to "open software,"
a useful and thought-provoking metaphor that threads through the entire
volume: "Just as open source software allows users to change
contribute to the source code of their software, open government now
means government where citizens not only have access to
documents, and proceedings, but can also become participants in a
This remarkable compilation has
something to admire and absorb on every
page, even for those on the inside of the Government 2.0 movement. Each
by experts in academia, industry, and government,
including Tim O'Reilly himself, approaches the material from a different
While O'Reilly, for example, sees government as a "platform"
similar to an operating system, entrepreneur and intelligence analyst
Matthew Burton imagines open-government advocates and developers as a
kind of digital Peace Corps. Bill Allison of the Sunlight
focuses on the pitfalls of government and "big data," while George
Mason University's Jerry Brito sees that same data
as a force begging
to be liberated from its dark prison of paper files and microfiche.
There are chapters viewing open government
through the prisms of the
Obama Administration's transparency policies; political contributions;
Republican philosophy, and even
Twitter. The chapter authors are
meticulous in listing open-government organizations and web sites
within the text.
not blind here, however, and the book's chapter authors
are unafraid to tackle potentially difficult issues involved in moving
participatory government into the digital realm. Jeff Jonas's and Jim
Harper's chapter "Open Government: The Privacy Imperative",
example, confronts the privacy implications of data transparency, and
suggests solutions remarkably similar to the Obama White
2012 "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" even though the book was
published in early 2011. Jonas and Harper are similarly
aware of how
deeply digital democracy must permeate into the population before it
becomes commonly accepted: "Open government will
succeed only if it
appeals to the widest possible audience, including skeptics of
government, opponents of any given administration,
and people who do
not trust technology."
"Open Government" is not a volume to be read at one sitting, nor in
chapter order. Rather,
it's a book to be savored, contemplated,
discussed, and used as a basis for further research and action.
Let's hope for a revised
edition after the 2012 elections.
-- EC Rosenberg
"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
concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The
Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing
areas of privacy
law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more.
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds
a cohesive foundation
for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law.
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
EPIC Champions of Freedom Awards Dinner. 11 June 2012, Washington, DC.
For More Information: http://epic.org/june11/.
The 12th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS 2012). 11-13
July 2012, Vigo, Spain. For More Information:
CONSENT policy conference: "Perceptions, Privacy and Permissions:
the role of consent in on-lineservices." 6-7 September 2012,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Call for papers by 7 June 2012. For More
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/.
"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 19.09 ------------------------