WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2013 >> [2013] EPICAlert 10

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

EPIC Alert 20.10 [2013] EPICAlert 10

EPIC Alert 20.10

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 20.10 May 31, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== [1] Sen. Paul Introduces Bill on Fourth Amendment, '3rd Party Doctrine' [2] TSA 'Unplugs, Boxes Up, and Ships Back' X-Ray Body Scanners [3] EPIC Asks FTC to Investigate Snapchat [4] EPIC Testifies Before Colorado Board on Student Privacy [5] FTC Opens Investigation into Google Advertising Dominance [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Who Owns the Future?' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Comment on the TSA's 'Nude' Airport Body Scanners! - COMMENTS to the TSA: - LEARN More: - SUPPORT EPIC: REGISTER NOW: EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner June 3, 2013, Washington DC with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Pulitzer Prize Winner Martha Mendoza Consumer Advocate Susan Grant Privacy Scholar and Advocate David Flaherty ======================================================================== [1] Sen. Paul Introduces Bill on Fourth Amendment, '3rd Party Doctrine' ======================================================================== Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced the "Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013," which would prohibit the warrantless collection of third-party information about individuals. The bill overturns the "third party doctrine," which eliminates any Fourth Amendment protections to information given over to third parties, and which has been widely criticized by courts and legal scholars. "In today's high-tech world, we must ensure that all forms of communication are protected. Yet government has eroded protecting the Fourth Amendment over the past few decades, especially when applied to electronic communications and third party providers," Sen. Paul said. "Congress has passed a variety of laws that decimate our Fourth Amendment protections. In effect, it means that Americans can only count on Fourth Amendment protections if they don't use e-mail, cell phones, the Internet, credit cards, libraries, banks, or other forms of modern finance and communications." Senator Paul's bill is another example of his recent focus on supporting greater privacy protections in the US. Sen. Paul recently introduced legislation to protect Americans against unwarranted domestic drone surveillance. Because of his promotion of greater privacy protections, Paul will receive a 2013 EPIC Champion of Freedom Award on June 3. EPIC supports greater privacy protections for information held by third parties, including location information. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently considered whether law enforcement may request cell-site location information without a warrant under the Stored Communications Act. EPIC filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in the case, State v. Earls, arguing that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to their location data, and that probable cause is necessary to obtain cell-site location information. The US Supreme Court also considered the status of location information in US v. Jones, specifically whether the warrantless attachment and use of a GPS tracking device on the petitioner's vehicle was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. EPIC's "Friend of the Court" brief argued that the police must obtain a warrant prior to attaching and monitoring a GPS tracking unit. Writing in concurrence with the Court's decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the third party doctrine was "ill suited for the digital age." Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013 (May 23, 2013) Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): Press Release on Bill (May 23, 2013) Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013 (Mar. 2013) EPIC: Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner (June 3) EPIC: In re Historic Cell-Site Location Information EPIC: Locational Privacy EPIC: UAVs and Drones EPIC: State of New Jersey v Earls EPIC: US v. Jones EPIC: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) ======================================================================== [2] TSA 'Unplugs, Boxes Up, and Ships Back' X-Ray Body Scanners ======================================================================== The Transportation Security Administration has completed removal of all backscatter x-ray body scanners from US airports. Backscatter machines reveal detailed images of a passengers's naked body as they go through airport security, and have been described as "digital strip searches." They have also received criticism because of their radiation output, and many experts have questioned whether they are even effective in detecting threats. The backscatter machines are being replaced with millimeter-wave scanners, a less intrusive but still controversial scanning technology. The TSA's removal of the x-ray body scanners began in the fall of 2012 as a result of a Congressional edict and several lawsuits by EPIC. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandated that all body scanners be equipped with privacy-enhancing software by June 1, 2012. After granting itself a one-year extension, the TSA terminated a contract with backscatter x-ray manufacturer Rapiscan once the agency determined that privacy-enhancing software could not be added to meet the Congressional deadline. In the case EPIC v. TSA, EPIC brought a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the agency and requested that a Washington, DC federal court order the TSA to make a decision on the FOIA requests and produce all the documents that fell within the scope of those requests. EPIC's FOIA requests revealed that the body scanner devices could store and record images of naked air travelers. EPIC and a coalition of privacy organizations subsequently petitioned Secretary Napolitano to suspend further deployment of the devices and provide the public with an opportunity to comment. When the Secretary failed to begin a public comment process, EPIC sued the DHS. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July 2011 in EPIC v. DHS that air travelers have a right to opt-out of the body-scanner screening and that the TSA must undertake a public notice and comment rulemaking on the agency's airport screening procedures. Public comment forms are available online at!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 through June 24, 2013. CNN: Article on Body Scanner Removal (May 30, 2013) US Congress: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Feb. 1, 2012) Public Rulemaking: Passenger Screening Using AIT!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 EPIC: Comment on the TSA Nude Body Scanner Proposal EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) EPIC: EPIC v. TSA - Body Scanner Modifications (ATR) ======================================================================== [3] EPIC Asks FTC to Investigate Snapchat ======================================================================== EPIC has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against the makers of Snapchat, a mobile app that claims to allow users to take photos and videos that will self-destruct permanently after the recipient views them. Snapchat's website states that users can make photos and videos "disappear forever." In fact, Snapchat recipients can retrieve photos and videos after they should have vanished. The app does not wipe messages from users' phones; rather, forensic software can be used to extract the supposedly deleted messages from deep within the phone's memory. According to EPIC's complaint, files are not deleted; rather, their extensions are changed to .NOMEDIA, and "[b]y removing the .NOMEDIA extension, the pictures become viewable again." EPIC calls on the FTC to investigate Snapchat for "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. The FTC encourages companies to incorporate "privacy by design" into their software, including the use of Privacy Enhancing Techniques, i.e., "methods that minimize or eliminate the collection of personally identifiable information." The FTC similarly described Privacy Enhancing Techniques in a 2012 privacy report. In 2008, EPIC filed a complaint at the FTC against's AskEraser, a search engine add-on that claimed to delete search history. AskEraser did not meet the privacy protection claims it offered to users, falsely representing that search queries would be deleted, when in fact they were retained by the company and made available to law enforcement agencies. EPIC: Complaint to FTC re: Snapchat (May 16, 2013) FTC: Report on Consumer Privacy (Mar. 26, 2013) EPIC: Does AskEraser Really Erase? EPIC: Complaint to FTC re: AskEraser (Jan. 18, 2008) EPIC: Federal Trade Commission ======================================================================== [4] EPIC Testifies Before Colorado Board on Student Privacy ======================================================================== EPIC Administrative Law Counsel Khaliah Barnes testified May 16 before t he Colorado State Board of Education on privacy issues related to the inBloom student information database and other companies that acquire student information. According to the inBloom website, the product is designed to help teachers and schools "simplify how they record student information, administer tests, analyze performance, train teachers, and share lesson plans to support personalized learning." inBloom supports this "personalization" by storing student data, some of which is typical for schools to collect, such as test scores, attendance records, and credit requirements. However, inBloom is also equipped to collect other data sets, including "students that are tagged for interventions or . . . for the purposes of tracking or analysis, such as a principal watch list" and "actions or behaviors that constitute an 'offense' in violation of laws, rules, policies, or norms of behavior." In response to public outcry over the initial launch of inBloom, the Colorado State Board of Education hosted a study session to gain additional information on the database. Participants included EPIC and representatives from inBloom, the Colorado Attorney General's Office, and a local school district. EPIC's Barnes explained that several of the tracking categories posed privacy threats to the students' futures; for example, the inBloom database asks teachers to identify students who have been the "perpetrators" or "accomplices" in incidents of rule violations. EPIC pointed out that, unless a criminal act took place, "schools should be reluctant to label K-12 students using criminal terminology in an electronic database. This is because these records could be used later in life for employment and postsecondary school decisions." EPIC also recommended that Colorado take steps to ensure the security of student data within the inBloom database, and to facilitate student and parent access to that data. EPIC specifically recommended that Colorado's agreement with inBloom and similar companies should "set out the obligations of confidentiality, require physical and access security, define the duration of data storage," and "specify the standards to be applied for each of these obligations." Additionally, Colorado should limit data collection and transfer to inBloom only "necessary information," provide parents and students with access to any agreements with inBloom and other private education technology services, and ensure that students and parents have access to the educational records maintained by third party providers as well as the ability to limit disclosure to third parties. EPIC sued the US Education Department in 2012 for issuing regulations amending the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). The Department's 2011 proposed regulations reinterpreted statutorily defined terminology and removed limitations prohibiting educational institutions from disclosing students' Personally Identifiable Information without first obtaining student or parental consent. EPIC's subsequently filed comments noted the illegality of the agency's amendments, including the reinterpretation of the statutory terms "authorized representative," "education program," and "directory information." When the Education Department enacted the regulations without modification, EPIC's lawsuit argued that the agency's regulations exceeded the agency's statutory authority, and were contrary to law. EPIC: Testimony Before the CO Ed. Board re: inBloom (May 16, 2013) EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Education (Feb. 29, 2012) Colorado State Board of Education: Meeting Agendas EPIC: EPIC v. US Department of Education EPIC: Student Privacy ======================================================================== [5] FTC Opens Investigation into Google Advertising Dominance ======================================================================== The Federal Trade Commission reportedly has opened a new antitrust investigation into Google's display advertising business. The Commission is investigating whether Google's dominant position in the display advertising market following the company's 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick deliberately harms competition. DoubleClick was a major Internet advertising service that helped large companies match banner ads to targeted audiences. EPIC opposed Google's 2007 acquisition of DoubleClick, which the FTC approved over the objections of former Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour. In testimony before the US Senate Antitrust Committee, EPIC stated, "[T]he merger of the Internet's largest search company and the Internet's largest advertising [company poses] a unique and substantial threat to the privacy interests of Internet users around the globe." Numerous EPIC complaints to the FTC have pushed the agency to sanction Google on several occasions for violating user privacy, deceiving users about Google's practices, and misusing private data. In 2012, the FTC fined Google $22.5 million, and Attorneys General for 38 states and the District of Columbia settled with Google for $7 million over privacy violations in Google's Street View program. The Federal Communications Commission fined Google for obstructing the agency's own investigation of Street View. The European Union is currently investigating both Google's search business and the company's Motorola Mobility subsidiary for potentially illegal monopolistic practices. LA Times: Article on FTC Antitrust Probe of Google (May 24, 2013) EPIC: Google/DoubleClick Merger EPIC: US Senate Testimony on Google/DoubleClick Merger (Sep. 27, 2007) FTC: Dissent of Harbour on Google/Doubleclick Merger (Dec. 20, 2007) EPIC: EPIC v. FTC (Enforcement of Google Consent Order) EPIC: In re Google Buzz AG of CT et al.: Settlement with Google re: Street View (Mar. 12, 2013) EPIC: FCC Investigation of Google Street View CNIL: Press Release on EU-Google Investigation (Apr. 2, 2013) EPIC: Federal Trade Commission ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== Texas Governor to Sign Bill Requiring Warrants for Email Searches The Texas legislature has passed H.B. No. 2268, a bill that creates a warrant requirement for law-enforcement access to stored electronic communications and customer data. The law, which was presented to Gov. Rick Perry May 28, is the first successful state effort to establish an across-the-board warrant requirement for stored communications. The US Congress is considering similar changes to the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Other members of Congress have proposed more sweeping privacy reforms, and bills in both the House and Senate would establish locational privacy protections. Earlier in 2013, EPIC testified before the Texas Legislature on H.B. 1608, a locational privacy companion bill to H.B. 2268. TX State Legislature: Text of H.B. No. 2268 (May 28, 2013) US Congress: ECPA Amendments Act of 2013 (Mar. 19, 2013) US Congress: SB 1037 (Fourth Amendment Rights) (May 23, 2013) US House: "Online Comm. and Geolocation Prot. Act" (Mar. 6, 2013) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Text of "GPS Act of 2013" (2013) EPIC: Locational Privacy EPIC: Testimony Before TX Legislature re: HB 1608 (Mar. 26, 2013) EPIC: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) Pew Survey Finds Teens Using Privacy Controls on Social Media A survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project and Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society has found that while teens are disclosing more personal information on social media, the majority actively protects their privacy. Sixty percent of teen Facebook users keep their profiles private and visible only to a select group of friends, and 56% felt confident in their ability to manage Facebook's privacy settings. Most teens also reported deleting or blocking users on social media sites, or obscuring the content of their messages via inside or coded references. Other recent polls by Pew have found that a majority of parents were concerned about their children's online privacy, and that users were becoming more active in managing their social media accounts. Pew Internet/Berkman Center: Teen Social Media Survey (May 21, 2013) Pew Internet: "Parents, Teens, and Internet Privacy" (Nov. 20, 2012) Pew Internet: "Privacy management on social media sites" (Feb. 2012) EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy EPIC: Facebook Privacy EPIC: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Congress Seeks Answers on Google Glass Privacy Risks Members of the bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus have sent a letter to Google seeking answers to questions about Glass, a wearable computer that can record video and audio, gather locational data, and possibly perform facial recognition. The Caucus's questions included whether Google "plans to prevent Google Glass from unintentionally collecting data about the user/non-user without consent" and whether Glass would be able to use facial recognition technology. Earlier in 2013, Attorneys General for 38 states and the District of Columbia reached a $7 million settlement with Google over the unauthorized collection of data from wireless networks, including private WiFi networks of residential Internet users. In early 2012, Google collapsed company privacy policies, prompting objections from EPIC, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and IT managers in the government and private sectors. Cong. Privacy Caucus: Letter to Google re: Glass (May 16, 2013) State AGs: Settlement re: WiFi Data Collection (Mar. 11, 2013) NAAG: Letter to Google re: Privacy Policy Changes (Feb. 22, 2012) Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus: Letter to FTC re: Google (Feb. 17, 2012) SafeGov: Blog Post on Google Policy Changes (Jan. 25, 2012) EPIC: EPIC v. FTC (Enforcement of the Google Consent Order) EPIC: Google Glass and Wearable Computers ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== "Startups Sell Privacy in a Facebook-Dominated Social World." Bloomberg BusinessWeek, May 31, 2013. in-a-facebook-dominated-social-world "All Backscatter Body Scanners Officially Removed From Airports.", May 31, 2013. body-scanners-officially-removed-from-airports.html?id=15035728 "Who's tracking your children?" The Washington Examiner, May 30, 2013. children/article/2530873 "Privacy a looming issue as drone regulation loosens." Yahoo News, May 30, 2013. regulation-loosens-111425343.html "TSA removes body scanners criticized as too revealing." CNN, May 29, 2013. hpt=tr_c2 "How Private are Your Medical Records?" Fox News (Video), May 20, 2013. 2397321883001 "Snapchat Doesn't Delete Photos As Promised, EPIC Tells FTC." Law360, May 20, 2013. delete-photos-as-promised-epic-tells-ftc "New Yorker's Strongbox: Can it shield anonymous sources?" CBS News, May 18, 2013. strongbox-can-it-shield-anonymous-sources/ "Don't want to be tracked? Turn cellphone off, says magistrate." NBC News, May 17, 2013. cellphone-says-magistrate-1C9954245 "Privacy watchdog EPIC files complaint against Snapchat with FTC." Los Angeles Times, May 17, 2013. watchdog-epic-files-complaint-against-snapchat-with-ftc-20130517, 0,3618395.story "Data fears aired before State Board." EdNews Colorado, May 16, 2013. before-state-board "Meet Stingrays, The Surveillance Tech The Government Doesn't Want To Talk About." Think Progress, May 17, 2013. stingrays-the-surveillance-tech-the-government-doesnt-want-to- For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================== [8] Book Review: 'Who Owns the Future?' ======================================================================== "Who Owns the Future?," Jaron Lanier Computer science pioneer, musician, and futurist Jaron Lanier's new book lays out a provocative perspective on the current information economy, how it's leading us to disaster, and a potential better path. According to Lanier, the root of society's IT problem lies in what Lanier calls "Siren Servers" - computers that gather data from the network, often without cost, to use and analyze for their owners' benefit. "Siren Servers" are found in social networks, search engines, and the insurance industry and financial industries; for example, Facebook and Google are both Siren Servers because they offer free services so they can freely collect your information in order to sell advertising. Meanwhile, both companies are lauded as the great successes of the information economy. Lanier argues against the common belief that the information economy provides plenty of opportunity for growth. He argues that relentless corporate spying and lack of compensation for individuals' data only will concentrate wealth and power in new and unsustainable ways and leave society bereft of opportunities to sustain a robust middle class. Lanier's convincing argument provides examples ranging from the financial industry's overleveraged mortgages to Amazon's monitoring of book prices to demonstrate how Siren Servers' concentration of information allows for concentrated wealth while creating personal risk for everyone else. The middle of "Who Owns the Future?" grows a little meandering as it adds nuances of understanding to Lanier's thesis. Once you understand the problem as described by Lanier, you yearn to get to his proposed solution in the hope that it will be as interestingly provocative as the problem. Lanier does not disappoint: The solution is, in fact, as fascinating and scary as uncharted territory tends to be, and raises an entire set potential problems that must be weighed against current issues. Specifically, Lanier argues that in order to counter the Siren Servers, people who are spied on and consequently provide information for them - and that means nearly all of us - should be full economic participants in the information economy: In other words, you should be compensated for your information. As Lanier pointedly observes, "your lack of privacy is someone else's wealth." Overall, Lanier's vision of a better path is not the a panacea but an important first step in turning a critical eye towards our current information economy and assessing whether a better path is feasible. "Who Owns the Future?" is an amazingly thought-provoking piece that should leave readers questioning whether the all the "free" services online are really worth it. --Jeramie D. Scott ================================ EPIC Publications: "Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75. Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws. This updated version includes new material regarding President Obama's 2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's March 2009 memo on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under: the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated 2010 volume is the 25th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years. ================================ "Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98. This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more. Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law. ================================ "Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75. This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over 75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections, new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy. Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy and data protection ever published. ================================ "The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40. This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in the WSIS process. ================================ "The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price: $40. The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students, attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials include the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act. ================================ "Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20. A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering threatens free expression. ================================ EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free expression, and constitutional values can be ordered at: EPIC Bookstore ================================ EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at: ======================================================================= [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner. 3 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More Information: 2013 Health Privacy Summit, 5-6 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More Information: privacy-summit/event-summary-1bfa9be80d364092aeed1a8803377fa8.aspx. 22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference. 25-26 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More Information: Contact Chris Calabrese at ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET. Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC. ======================================================================= Privacy Policy ======================================================================= The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." ======================================================================= About EPIC ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). ======================================================================= Donate to EPIC ======================================================================= If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at: Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy and efforts to oppose government and private-sector infringement on constitutional values. Thank you for your support. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface: Back issues are available at: The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 20.10------------------------

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback