E P I C A l e r t
Volume 20.17 September 3, 2013
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 EPIC to Host International Privacy Conference in Warsaw
 NSA Violated Law Thousands of Times, Intercepted US Communications
 FISA Court: NSA Violated Both Fourth Amendment and FISA
 EPIC, Privacy Groups Urge Court to Reject Proposed Google Settlement
 EPIC FOIA: DHS Facial Recognition System Lacks Privacy Safeguards
 News in Brief
 EPIC in the News
 EPIC Book Review:
'The Great Dissent'
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
TAKE ACTION: Tell Facebook: "Stop Changing Our Privacy Settings!"
about the Changes: http://epic.org/redirect/090313-facebook.html
- LEARN More about Facebook Privacy: http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/
- SUPPORT EPIC: http://www.epic.org/donate/
to Host International Privacy Conference in Warsaw
in collaboration with many of the world's leading privacy
organizations, will host the 2013 Public Voice conference in Warsaw,
Poland on September 24, 2013. The conference, "Our Data, Our Lives,"
will feature civil society groups, privacy advocates, tech
and other data privacy professionals, and is being held in
conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Conference
of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners.
This year's Public Voice conference will cover five major topics:
impact of the Madrid Declaration of 2009; civil
society's response to the NSA's surveillance programs; data-protection
of Internet intermediaries; US-EU trade agreement
discussions; and NGO strategies for a data-protection agenda. Keynote
will be Jacob Kohnstam, Chairman of the Article 29 Working
Party. Panelists include high-level privacy officials and advocates
from countries including France, Poland, Belgium, Japan, Peru, India,
and Canada, as well as representatives from the European Union.
Public Voice conference participants will be able to attend
presentations and discussions at the 35th Annual Data Protection and
Privacy Commissioners' Conference, the world's largest annual privacy
forum, which runs from September 23-26. The Privacy Commissioners'
Conference brings together governmental data-protection and privacy
authorities and institutions, and academics, NGOs and other
The 2013 conference explores "Privacy: A Compass in Turbulent World."
EPIC established The Public Voice coalition 1996
to promote public
participation in decisions concerning the future of the Internet.
The Public Voice has pursued issues ranging
from privacy and freedom
of expression to consumer protection and Internet governance. Through
international conferences, reports
and funding for travel The Public
Voice seeks to increase the presence of NGOs at meetings across the
globe. In cooperation with
the OECD, UNESCO, and other international
organizations, The Public Voice project brings civil society leaders
government officials for constructive engagement
about current policy issues. Public Voice events have been held in
Cape Town, Dubai, Hong Kong, Honolulu, Kuala Lumpur,
Madrid, Mexico City, Ottawa, Paris, Punta del Este, Seoul, Tel Aviv,
Washington, and Wroclaw.
The Public Voice
The Public Voice: "Our Data, Our Lives"
35th Annual Conference of Data Protection
and Privacy Commissioners
The Public Voice: The 2009 Madrid Declaration
 NSA Violated Law Thousands of Times, Intercepted US
A 2012 NSA internal audit has revealed that
the agency violated both
legal rules and privacy restrictions thousands of times each year since
2008, leading to unauthorized
surveillance of American communications,
including 2,776 violations in the last 12 months alone. During that
time, the number of
violations rose each quarter.
The audit attributed violations to a number of different factors,
including a lack of training, human
error, and a failure to follow
standard operating procedures. The incidents included the interception
of a "large number" of calls
placed from Washington, DC to Egypt when
an NSA algorithm confused the DC area code (202) with the Egyptian
country code (20).
Another incident involved the unauthorized use of
the data of more than 3,000 American citizens and green-card holders.
called "Targeting Rationale (TAR)" reveals how NSA analysts
are trained to avoid giving "extraneous information" to their "FAA
overseers" when they want to target an individual. The document
emphasizes that NSA analysts are not to give additional information
including "probable cause-like information (i.e. proof of your analytic
judgment), how you came to your analytic conclusions .
. . or selector
In 2006, EPIC wrote to the US Senate Judiciary Committee about
instances of FBI intelligence gathering
misconduct uncovered through
EPIC's Freedom of Information Act requests. The incidents included
possible violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. One
incident involved the collection
of the content of 181 phone calls
instead of just billing and toll records. EPIC urged the Committee to
investigate the FBI's use
of expanded authority to undertake
intelligence investigations in the US.
EPIC recently petitioned the NSA to suspend domestic
programs pending a public comment period. The petition was signed by a
number of leading privacy experts and thousands
of individuals. The NSA
has now responded, arguing that "any NSA activities involving the
collection of communications that may
meet the description set forth in
your letter, if any, would not constitute Agency actions that are
subject to notice-and-comment
requirements . . ." EPIC also has filed a
petition with the US Supreme Court challenging the legal authority of
the FISA Court
to authorize the NSA's program. The government has
requested an extension to reply to EPIC's filing.
NSA: Intelligence Oversight
Quarterly Report (May 3, 2012)
NSA: Targeting Rationale
EPIC: Letter to Senate re: FBI Surveillance (Jun. 16, 2006)
EPIC: Response to Petition from NSA (Aug. 31, 2013)
to the NSA (June 17, 2013)
EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance
 FISA Court: NSA Violated Both Fourth Amendment and
A newly released opinion by the Foreign Intelligence
has revealed that the NSA violated the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act when the
agency acquired tens of
thousands of wholly domestic Internet communications.
In the fall of 2011, the FISA Court found that the
NSA's targeting and
minimization procedures, as applied to collection directly from
Internet fiber optic cables (i.e. "upstream
collection"), violated the
Fourth Amendment because they were "unreasonable." Upstream collection
involves acquiring "Internet
transactions" that can contain multiple
communications. According to the opinion of the former presiding judge
of the FISA Court,
the NSA has acquired more than 250 million Internet
communications per year. Roughly 9% of these communications are
upstream collection and more than 50,000 each year contain
Because of the large number of wholly domestic
by the NSA, the FISA Court found that NSA's targeting and minimization
procedures were not reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment. The Court
also found that NSA's minimization procedures violated the FISA, and
required that the agency adopt
additional protections to ensure privacy.
The FISA Court opinion further stated that the US government had
the scope of the collection programs, and
suggested that the "volume and nature" of Internet communications
acquired under Section
702 of the USA PATRIOT Act was not what the
government originally represented to the FISA Court. According to the
US government also misrepresented the program to collect
domestic telephone records. The Court noted that the NSA, for at least
three years, routinely ran queries of the agency's telephone metadata
database that did not meet the standards set by FISA Court.
In June, EPIC petitioned the NSA to suspend domestic surveillance
programs pending a public comment period. The petition has been
by a number of leading privacy experts and thousands of individuals.
The NSA has responded, arguing that ""any NSA activities involving the
collection of communications that may meet the description set forth
in your letter,
if any, would not constitute Agency actions that are
subject to notice-and-comment requirements . . ." EPIC also has filed a
with the US Supreme Court challenging the FISA Court's legal
authority to authorize the NSA's domestic surveillance program.
Press Release on Declassified FISA Court Opinions (Aug. 21, 2013)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA)
EPIC: Petition to the NSA re: Domestic Surveillance (Jun. 17,
EPIC: Mandamus Petition to the Supreme Court (Jul. 8, 2013)
EPIC: USA Patriot Act
 EPIC, Privacy Groups Urge Court to Reject Proposed Google Settlement
EPIC, joined by several leading privacy and consumer protection
organizations, has submitted a letter to the Court of the Northern
District of California over a proposed settlement in a class-action
lawsuit against Google.
The settlement was proposed by class
action lawyers in a case centered
on Google's unlawful disclosure of search terms to third parties;
however, under the terms of
the proposed settlement, Google would not
be required to change any business practices. EPIC's letter states,
"It is absurd to
argue that a benefit is provided to the Class where
the company makes no material change in its business practices and is
to continue the practice that provides the basis for the
putative class action." EPIC explained that under the terms of the
settlement, "a company that manufactures a faulty toaster
that catches fire because of poor wiring is permitted post-settlement
to continue to manufacture the toaster as before with no change to the
wiring that created the risk to the customers, as long as
customers of the risk arising from its ongoing negligence."
EPIC's letter also objects to the proposed settlement's
address the needs of the Class members. In addition to providing "no
benefit to Class members" because the settlement
does not require
Google to change its business practices, EPIC argues, "the proposed
cy pres allocation is not aligned with the
interests of the purported
Class members." "Cy pres" (a term which roughly translates to "as near
as possible") is a legal doctrine
that allows courts to allocate funds
to protect the interests of individuals when there is a class action
settlement. Under Ninth
Circuit Court precedent, cy pres funds must be
used to advance the interests of the class members. However, under the
Google settlement, only one of the seven organizations that
would receive the cy pres funds has the protection of privacy as a
mission and is aligned with the interests of class members.
Privacy class action cases have become very contentious, with privacy
organizations arguing that the settlements provide little actual
benefit to Internet users, though attorneys receive substantial
fees and companies are permitted to continue the privacy-invading
practice that provided the basis for the lawsuit.
to review the fairness of class action settlements in
privacy cases in currently pending before the US Supreme Court.
to Judge Davila re: Google Settlement (Aug. 22, 2013)
to Judge Seeborg re: Facebook Settlement (Jul. 11, 2012)
EPIC: Search Engine Privacy
EPIC: Google Buzz
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
US Supreme Court: Marek v. Lane (Jul. 26, 2013)
 EPIC FOIA: DHS Facial Recognition System Lacks Privacy
In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request, the
Department of Homeland Security has produced documents revealing that
the agency has failed to establish privacy safeguards
for "BOSS" (the
Biometric Optical Surveillance System), an elaborate system for facial
recognition and identification of individuals.
The documents obtained by EPIC indicate that none of the agency's
contracts or statements of work require any data privacy or
protections for BOSS' design, production, or test implementations. In
one of the records produced, DHS stated, "DHS components
ability to positively identify/screen people in a secure, efficient,
accurate, and timely manner. This ability encompasses
storage, transmission, and receipt of biometric and biographic data to
support the component missions." However,
in over 100 pages of
responsive documents, DHS does not describe any system of checks or
safeguards for the "collection, storage,
transmission, and receipt" of
the personally identifiable biometric and biographic data.
The New York Times reported August 21
on EPIC's acquisition of these
documents, drawing attention to high failure rates for these systems.
The article noted, "Several
independent biometric specialists, given a
description of the project's test results, agreed that the system was
not yet ready.
They said 30 seconds was far too long to process an
image for security purposes, and that its accuracy numbers would
the police going out to question too many innocent people."
EPIC staff interviewed for the article emphasized that now is the time
to build in privacy protections for technologies that are still in
development, rather than allowing privacy safeguards to become
EPIC is also pursuing a FOIA lawsuit against the FBI over the agency's
development of "Next Generation ID," which,
when complete, will be the
largest biometric identification database program in the world. The NGI
biometric identifiers will include
fingerprints, iris scans, DNA
profiles, voice identification profiles, palm prints, and photographs.
The system will include facial
recognition capabilities to analyze
collected images. Millions of individuals who are neither convicted nor
will be included in the database. Using facial
recognition on images of crowds, NGI will enable the identification of
in public settings, whether or not the police have made
the necessary legal showing to compel the disclosure of identification
EPIC: FOIA Request to DHS re: BOSS (Feb. 13, 2013)
EPIC: BOSS Documents
(#1 of 2) (Apr. 5, 2013)
EPIC: BOSS Documents (#2 of 2) (Jun. 3, 2013)
The New York Times: Article on BOSS (Aug. 21, 2013)
EPIC: Face Recognition
EPIC: EPIC Opposes DHS Biometric Collection
EPIC: Biometric Identifiers
EPIC: EPIC v. FBI (Next Generation ID)
 News in Brief
President Announces Intelligence Review Group; EPIC Presses for Reform
President Obama recently met with the members of a newly
of experts to review intelligence and communications technologies. The
group consists of computer security advisor
Richard Clark, former CIA
Director Michael Morell, and legal scholars Geoffrey Stone, Cass
Sunstein, and Peter Swire. The White
House said the group would
advise the President on how "the United States can employ its
technical collection capabilities in a
way that optimally protects
our national security and advances our foreign policy while respecting
our commitment to privacy and civil liberties,
recognizing our need to
maintain the public trust, and reducing the risk of unauthorized
disclosure." After the President's announcement,
EPIC contacted each
of the review group members to provide materials on the protection of
privacy and civil liberties. Documents
included copies of EPIC's
petition to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the current domestic
surveillance program is unlawful;
EPIC's 2012 Congressional testimony
on the FISA Amendments Act; and EPIC's 2010 letter to the Foreign
Court on reform of FISA procedures.
The White House: Statement on Review Group (Aug. 27, 2013)
EPIC: Petition to the Supreme Court re: Surveillance (Jul. 8, 2013)
Congressional Testimony on FISA Amendments Act (May 31, 2012)
EPIC: Comments to FISA Court on Amended Rules (Oct. 4, 2010)
US Supreme Court May Consider Cell Phone Privacy
The US Supreme
Court is likely to address two mobile phone privacy
cases during the 2013 term, both centering on whether law enforcement
right to warrantlessly search the emails, texts, and address
book on an arrestee's cell phone. In Riley v. California, the defendant
challenged a police officer's search of his smartphone. In United
States v. Wurie, the Department of Justice seeks review of an
court's decision that warrants are necessary to search a cell phone.
Earlier in 2013, EPIC successfully argued to the New
Court that a warrant is required to track a cell phone's location. In
2012, the US Supreme Court held in United
States v. Jones that
warrants are required to use GPS tracking devices.
EPIC: Riley v. California
US Supreme Court: Petition to Hear US v. Wurie (Aug. 2013)
US v. Jones
EPIC: Mobile Privacy
FTC Chairwoman Calls for Transparency in Big Data
In an August 19 keynote speech at the Technology Policy Institute
Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez
called upon companies to "move their data collection and use practices
the shadow and into the sunlight." Chairwoman Ramirez's speech
highlighted the risks of big data, including indiscriminate collection,
data breaches, and behind-the-scenes profiling. She also stressed the
importance of protecting consumers' privacy and stated, "[W]ith
data comes big responsibility." EPIC has testified before Congress on
data collection and called for the regulation of data
"[t]here is too much secrecy, too little accountability, and too much
risk of far-reaching economic damage" in
data-broker business practices.
EPIC has recommended that the FTC enforce Fair Information Practices,
such as those contained in
the Obama Administration's Consumer Privacy
Bill of Rights, against commercial actors.
FTC Chair Ramirez: Speech to Aspen Forum
(Aug. 19, 2013)
EPIC: Testimony before Congress on Data Brokers
(Mar. 15, 2005)
EPIC: Recommendation to FTC on Appointing
FTC Chair (Dec. 4, 2012)
EPIC: Privacy and Consumer Profiling
Pew Survey Finds Most Teens Seek Advice on Privacy Management
A new survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project and
University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society finds that while
many teens report a high level of comfort with online
"at some point, 70% of them have sought advice from someone else about
how to manage their privacy online." According
to the survey, teens
generally turned to friends, parents, or other close family members for
online privacy advice. Other Pew surveys
have found that most teens
were taking steps to protect their online privacy; that a majority of
parents were concerned about their
children's online privacy; and that
social media users were becoming more active in managing the privacy of
Pew Internet: "Where Teens Seek Privacy Advice" (Aug. 15, 2013)
Pew Internet: "Teens, Social Media, and Privacy" (May 21, 2013)
Pew Internet: "Parents, Teens, and Online Privacy" (Nov. 20,2012)
Pew Internet: "Privacy management on social media sites" (Feb. 24, 2012)
EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy
 EPIC in the News
"The Face Scan Arrives." Op-Ed by
former EPIC Open Government Counsel
Ginger McCall. The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2013.
"NSA paying U.S. companies for access to communications networks."
The Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2013.
to release surveillance-request data." Politico, Aug. 29, 2013.
"U.S. plans reports on secret court orders to telecom providers."
Reuters, Aug. 29, 2013.
"Uncle Sam Wants Your Facebook Data." Tech News World, Aug. 28, 2013.
"Hey Ohio Drivers, Welcome to the Police Lineup!" Reason, Aug. 27,
"DeWine backs use of facial-recognition software." The Columbus
Dispatch, Aug. 27, 2013.
"N.S.A. Phone Data Collection Is Illegal, A.C.L.U. Says." The New York
Times, Aug. 26, 2013.
"inBloom debate blossoms."
Our Colorado News, Aug. 26, 2013.
"Google's $8.5M Privacy Deal Cracks Puzzling Injury Issues." Law 360,
Aug. 26, 2013.
"FAA approves drone use over Alaskan oil fields." The Daily Caller,
Aug. 23, 2013.
"Privacy groups hit $8.5M Google settlement plan." ComputerWorld, Aug.
"Privacy Groups Want Judge To Reject Google's $8.5 Million Settlement
Over Search Privacy Lawsuit." Search Engine Land, Aug. 23, 2013.
"New Details On The Scope Of NSA Surveillance." NPR's "The Diane Rehm
Aug. 22, 2013.
"Former U.S. officials
to be named to surveillance panel." The
Washington Post, Aug. 22, 2013.
"Cell phone data latest threat
to privacy." Fox News, Aug. 22, 2013.
"Attempts to Protect Privacy Have a Long History." TruthDig, Aug. 22,
"Privacy Groups Seek To Scuttle Google's $8.5 Million Data-Leakage
Aug. 22, 2013.
"Facial Scanning Is Making Gains in Surveillance." The
New York Times,
Aug. 21, 2013.
"Petition seeks end to NSA's domestic spying." Consumer Affairs, Aug.
"Government surveillance spurs Americans to fight back." The Washington
Post, Aug. 14, 2013.
"In re: Electronic Privacy Information Center." CATO Blog, Aug. 12,
For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html
 EPIC Book Review: 'The Great Dissent'
Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind --
and Changed the History of Free Speech in America," Thomas Healey
Not long after the end of the first World War, two Supreme Court
justices put in place the foundation of the modern rights of privacy
and free expression. One was an architect of Progressive-era reforms
and a student of Athenian democracy; the other found no moral
in law, stating once that "if my fellow citizens wish to travel to
hell, I shall be happy to oblige." So it is all the
that the stirring dissent in Abrams v. US, the cornerstone of modern
First Amendment law, was penned by Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes.
As a Civil War veteran, Holmes' defense of the speech of Russian
anarchists is at once improbable and the
predestined outcome of the
esteemed jurist's career. For it was Holmes who instructed that "The
life of the law has not been logic;
it has been experience," and in
this remarkable telling of the events that led up to the Abrams
dissent, Seton Hall Law professor
Thomas Healey has proven Holmes'
famous adage with rich detail, brisk prose, and a sense of humanity
befitting both the actors
and the outcome.
Abrams v. US was a challenge to the Espionage and Sedition Acts that
reached the Supreme Court after the end of
World War I. The Court
recently had upheld convictions of war protesters, including the
popular socialist leader Eugene Debs. Holmes,
who disfavored such
prosecutions, nonetheless found no legal objection to the laws of
Congress; in fact, he remarked bluntly on
"the right to kill those with
whom we disagree."
In one of the early protest cases, Holmes wrote an opinion relying on
Blackstone's narrow view of free speech. According to the British
jurist, government could not prohibit
speech prior to publication, but
once the words were spoken, criminal prosecution could follow. For a
country at war, speech in
opposition could well be viewed as seditious.
The question the Supreme Court faced was whether the First Amendment to
the US Constitution could permit prosecution.
Judge Learned Hand, the admired and influential lower court jurist, had
set out a "clear and present
danger" test to allow prosecution for only
the most dangerous speech in an opinion that was later overturned. It
was a phrase Holmes
would adopt casually in an early case before he
considered Abrams. ("Casually" because if Holmes had fully embraced the
he likely would have voted to overturn the conviction.)
But even more than Hand, Harold Laski, the brilliant young Harvard
who had become like a son to Holmes, helped change the old
man's views. Laski provided Holmes with books, argument, and the
flow of articles and opinion from colleagues who Holmes knew
As the reading material made its way to Holmes and
the exchange of
letters continued, the US was experiencing the upheaval of the post-War
era. Anarchist bombs were sent to the homes
of prominent politicians
and business leaders (one was addressed to Holmes). The labor movement
was gaining force. Racism and anti-Semitism
were on the rise. The
Attorney General and a young agent named J. Edgar Hoover were stepping
up their investigations of political
dissidents. When Holmes first
circulated his unexpected dissent, three of his fellow Justices visited
him at home and urged him
to withdraw his opinion so that the Court
could stand united. Holmes declined.
Holmes' powerful and purposeful dissent in Abrams
would become one of
the most famous documents in American legal history. Recasting the
earlier American experience with sedition
laws and sidestepping his
own prior opinion, Holmes argued for a view of the First Amendment that
reflected both the value of free
expression and the limitations of
". . . that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free
ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the
thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely
can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our
Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.
Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon
based upon imperfect knowledge. While that
experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be
eternally vigilant against
attempts to check the expression of
opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death,
unless they so imminently threaten
immediate interference with the
lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is
required to save the country."
Holmes would go on to write several more dissents in the First
Amendment cases that followed. Along with Justice Louis Brandeis,
helped build support for a view of the First Amendment that reflected a
country strong enough to fight for its beliefs, but
also wise enough to
know that ideas worth defending could always withstand criticism. It is
a view that has transformed governments,
established democracies, and
helped place freedom of expression among the core human rights of the
Not all those
who contributed to the Abrams moment faired as well in
the years that followed. Laski found himself on the receiving end of
speech with a sharp satire in the Harvard Lampoon. He left for
England, and joined the London School of Economics. Though he later
rose in the ranks of the British Labor Party, his separation from
Holmes must have hurt both men. Judge Hand, perhaps embittered
he had not been named to the highest court, wrote the unfortunate
1950 opinion in Dennis v. US, which gave support to Joe
those who sought to prosecute dissent. Justice Frankfurter, the great
liberal reformer of the Progressive era, had
restraint once on the Supreme Court. He affirmed Dennis. It would be
more than a decade before the Court restored
the "clear and present
danger" test, though slightly revised as "imminent lawless" acts.
And what of Abrams today? The First Amendment
remains a complex field
of law. Though the text says simply "Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press", the definition of
"speech" or the standard by which the Court should review such laws
remains in dispute. Still,
people in the US remain free to criticize
their government, to oppose military intervention even in times of
war. A century ago
this was not at all obvious. We have Holmes, the
Civil War veteran, to thank for our modern-day freedom.
-- Marc Rotenberg
"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:
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.
Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy
law, including: identity theft, government data mining
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs,
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation
for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area
"Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
(EPIC 2007). Price: $75.
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an
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
and data protection ever published.
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives
on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the
process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This
guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for
action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for
individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law,
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 for students,
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
up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials include
the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act,
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content
(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
"The Snitch in Your
Pocket," with EPIC Appellate Advocacy Counsel Alan
Butler. Chautauqua, NY, 17 July 2013. For More Information:
The Public Voice Conference, Warsaw, Poland, September 2013. For More
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
with EPIC's events. Support EPIC.
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: http://www.epic.org/alert
The EPIC Alert displays
best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 20.17------------------------