WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2013 >> [2013] EPICAlert 22

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

EPIC Alert 20.22 [2013] EPICAlert 22

EPIC Alert 20.22

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 20.22 November 15, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ========================================================================= Table of Contents ========================================================================= [1] Supreme Court to Consider EPIC Challenge to NSA Program [2] Oversight Board Adopts EPIC's Recommendations in New FOIA Rule [3] EPIC FOIA Suit Uncovers Student Loan Debt Collector Practices [4] Supreme Court Lets Stand Contested Facebook Settlement [5] Privacy Groups to FTC: Investigate US Firms in NSA Surveillance [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Book Review: 'The Circle' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Tell Facebook: "Stop Changing Our Privacy Settings!" - READ about the Changes: - LEARN More about Facebook Privacy: - SUPPORT EPIC: ========================================================================= [1] Supreme Court to Consider EPIC Challenge to NSA Program ========================================================================= The US Supreme Court is scheduled to consider EPIC's challenge to the NSA telephone record collection program at the Court's November 15 conference. EPIC has asked the Court to overturn a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order compelling Verizon to produce all customer telephone records, including domestic and local calls, to the NSA. EPIC's petition argues that this order clearly exceeded the authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The petition was distributed to the Justices October 30, along with "friend of the court" briefs by former Church Committee members and prominent scholars in information law, federal jurisdiction, and constitutional law, all of whom urged the Supreme Court to grant EPIC's petition. EPIC's petition argues that it is "simply not possible that every phone record in the possession of a telecommunications firm could be relevant to an authorized investigation." According to EPIC, such an interpretation would "render meaningless" the "relevance" limitation Congress added to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006. Many members of Congress, including the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act, agree that the government's interpretation is contrary to legislative intent. The "friend of the court" briefs in support of EPIC's case similarly argue that the government's position undermines the purposes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and threatens Fourth Amendment rights. The US Solicitor General's Office filed a brief in opposition to EPIC's petition on October 11, arguing that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. EPIC's ensuing Reply brief maintained that the government "simply cannot be correct" that the order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an inferior court, is not reviewable by the Supreme Court. EPIC also stated that the order is clearly unlawful. "No court has ever determined that 'relevance' permits the compelled production of such vast quantities of irrelevant personal information," EPIC said, noting that Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, has written, "This expansive characterization of relevance makes a mockery of the legal standard." The Supreme Court will make an initial decision on EPIC's petition on November 18. The Justices can vote to hear oral argument in the case, request additional briefing from the parties, or relist the case for consideration at a future conference. US Supreme Court: Docket Page for In re EPIC EPIC: In re EPIC Petition to US Supreme Court (Jul. 8, 2013) EPIC: FISA Court Order to Verizon re: Telephone Records (Apr. 23, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance EPIC: Reply Brief in In re EPIC (Oct. 28, 2013) US Gov't: Brief in Opposition to In re EPIC (Oct. 2013) Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI): Letter to DoJ on Patriot Act (Sep. 6, 2013) EPIC: "Friend of the Court Brief" I in In re: EPIC (Aug. 9, 2013) EPIC: "Friend of the Court Brief" II in In re: EPIC (Aug. 12, 2013) EPIC: "Friend of the Court Brief" III in In re: EPIC (Aug. 12, 2013) EPIC: "Friend of the Court Brief" IV in In re: EPIC (Aug. 2013) ======================================================================== [2] Oversight Board Adopts EPIC's Recommendations in New FOIA Rule ======================================================================== In response to extensive comments submitted by EPIC, the President's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) has issued a final rule that will govern the Board's Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Sunshine Act practices. PCLOB is an independent agency created to analyze and review executive branch counter-terrorism efforts for their impact on privacy and civil liberties. PCLOB was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report. The initial draft of the Board's rule allowed PCLOB to encourage other agencies to classify information, reserved the Board's right to terminate public participation in Board meetings "at any time for any reason," and contained vague, broad definitions that would permit the oversight agency to withhold information and delay document production. EPIC's comments to the Board provided a number of recommendations for achieving better transparency. These recommendations included narrowing the Board's definition of "confidential business information" and "unusual circumstances"; limiting the Board's broad language describing FOIA exemption (b)(5) to make it consistent with the (b)(5) exemption language in the Freedom of Information Act; and employing more explicit language explaining the administrative appeals process. The Board adopted nearly all of EPIC's proposed changes. EPIC's comments also encouraged PCLOB to set a better example for other government agencies involved in government information practices. Overall, EPIC concluded, "EPIC recommends that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board revise the proposed regulations, remove the new barriers to access to government information, and incorporate new procedures that ease, not burden, the public's efforts to learn about the activities of its government." EPIC routinely comments on agency proposals that impact the rights of FOIA requesters. For example, EPIC has submitted extensive comments to the Defense Logistics Agency of the Department of Defense, warning the agency not to erect new obstacles for to those seeking DIA documents via the Freedom of Information Act. PCLOB: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (May 15, 2013) PCLOB: Final Rule (Nov. 8, 2013) EPIC: Comments on PCLOB on Transparency (Jul. 15, 2013) Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) EPIC: EPIC Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Comments EPIC: Open Government ========================================================================= [3] EPIC FOIA Suit Uncovers Student Loan Debt Collector Practices ========================================================================= Pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the US Education Department, EPIC has obtained documents revealing that many private debt-collection agencies maintain incomplete and insufficient quality control reports on delinquent student loans. As government contractors, debt collectors are required by federal law to abide by the Privacy Act of 1974, a federal law that protects personal information. The Education Department also requires student-debt collectors to submit quality control reports indicating whether the companies maintain accurate student loan information. According to EPIC's lawsuit, the Education Department contracts with at least 23 private debt-collection agencies that obtain sensitive personal information from students, including contact information, loan status, income, Social Security number, and credit history. EPIC's complaint states that in 2011, the Education Department held $355 million worth of contracts with private debt collectors. That same year, "the Department received 1,406 complaints about private debt collectors, a 41% increase from the previous year," and that many of those complaints "concern[ed] invasive and harassing communications." The FOIA documents obtained by EPIC reveal that many companies conceal possible Privacy Act violations by providing small sample sizes in their quality control reports. The documents also show that many companies do not submit required information about Privacy Act compliance to the Education Department. EPIC has recently settled the case and obtained attorneys fees for making this information available to the public. EPIC maintains one of the leading student privacy projects in the country. Earlier in 2013, in a letter to the US Senate and House Committees on Education, EPIC asked Congress to restore privacy protections for student data. "Students and families are losing control over sensitive information," EPIC wrote, "and private companies are becoming the repositories of student data and even the data maintained by the schools is far more extensive than ever before." EPIC has also testified before the Colorado State Board of Education on privacy issues concerning inBloom and other companies that acquire student information. EPIC: EPIC v. ED - Private Debt Collector Privacy Act Compliance EPIC: Windham Professionals Quality Control Reports (2010-2013) EPIC: ConServe Quality Control Reports (Apr. 2010 - Mar. 2013) EPIC: Coast Quality Control Reports (Apr. 2010 - July 2011) EPIC: Initial FOIA Request to ED re: Debt Collection (Sept. 20, 2012) EPIC: Letter to Senate and House Ed. Committees on (Oct. 9, 2013) EPIC: Testimony and Statement for the Record Re: inBloom (May 16, 2013) EPIC: Student Privacy ========================================================================= [4] Supreme Court Lets Stand Contested Facebook Settlement ========================================================================= The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case Marek v. Lane, a 9th Circuit decision on Facebook's "Beacon" settlement. Facebook's Beacon advertising system, first launched in 2007, broadcast a Facebook user's interaction with third-party web sites to the user's friend list without affirmative consent. A putative class action lawsuit was settled with Facebook for $9.5 million, but other than modest payments to the named class members, there were no payments to the members of the class. Rather, under the doctrine of cy pres ("as near as possible") Facebook proposed funding a new charitable organization that would support organizations supporting online privacy, but have a Facebook representative be one of the three controlling Board members. The plaintiffs in the case appealed to the 9th circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, focusing on the "unusual" allocation of funds in the Beacon case, suggested that the Supreme Court would eventually need to address "fundamental concerns surrounding the use of such remedies in class action litigation" including "how to assess its fairness as a general matter . . . [and] how closely the goals of any enlisted organization must correspond to the interests of the class." Chief Justice Roberts also noted, "In a suitable case, this Court may need to clarify the limits on the use of such remedies." EPIC expressed similar concerns about the Facebook Beacon settlement in 2010. In a letter to the presiding judge, EPIC argued that the proposed "Digital Trust Foundation" would not have been "sufficiently independent of Facebook to serve as an effective tool for consumer privacy protection." EPIC argued that cy pres settlements should provide funds directly to non-profit organizations working directly on behalf of the class or a "neutral, third-party trustee" should distribute the funds. US Supreme Court: Decision Not to Hear Marek v. Lane (Nov. 4, 2013) EPIC: Letter to 9th Circuit re: Beacon Settlement (Jan. 15, 2010) Facebook: Beacon Program EPIC: Letter to 9th Circuit in Fraley v. Facebook (Jul. 12, 2013) EPIC: Letter to Court re: In re Google Referrer Header (Aug. 22, 2013) EPIC: In re Google Buzz EPIC: Facebook Privacy ======================================================================== [5] Privacy Groups to FTC: Investigate US Firms in NSA Surveillance ======================================================================== Consumer privacy organizations in the US, including EPIC, have asked the Federal Trade Commission to determine whether US companies have turned over private customer data to the National Security Agency. "We urge you to open an investigation to determine whether any failure by these companies to comply with the Commission's orders may have contributed to the improper disclosure of customer data," the groups wrote. The organizations, which have brought numerous privacy complaints to the FTC, stated that the disclosure of user data "directly implicates the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission." The letter references recent disclosures showing that the NSA attacked servers at Google and Yahoo and obtained the personal information of millions of consumers. Many of the companies involved in disclosing data to the NSA are also bound by the terms of previous consent orders with the Commission requiring "comprehensive privacy programs." Similarly, most of these companies are subject to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits "unfair and deceptive" trade practices and which has been used to protect consumer privacy. According to the organizations, "it is inconceivable that when faced with the most significant breach of consumer data in U.S. history, the Commission could ignore the consequences for consumer privacy." EPIC previously wrote to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the unlawful provision of call detail records to the NSA. EPIC urged the agency to determine whether Verizon violated the Communications Act when it released the call metadata. "Verizon's disclosure of [call metadata] to the NSA was not authorized under the Telecommunications Act because it did not fall under any of the Act's permissible disclosures. Verizon customers did not authorize these disclosures," EPIC's letter stated. The letter also referred the FCC to EPIC's June 2013 letter to Congress, detailing the illegality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order that presumably formed the basis for Verizon's disclosures. EPIC has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to vacate an unlawful order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that enables the NSA's collection of all domestic phone records. The government has argued that the Supreme Court lacks the power to hear the case. EPIC has responded to the US government's brief, arguing that it "simply cannot be correct" that the order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an inferior court, is not reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider EPIC's challenge to the NSA telephone record collection program at conference November 15. EPIC et al.: Letter to FTC re: NSA (Nov. 13, 2013) FTC: Facebook Settlement (Nov. 29, 2013) FTC: Google Buzz Settlement (Mar. 30, 2011) EPIC: Letter to FCC re: Verizon Order (Jun. 11, 2013) EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court re: Verizon Order (Jul. 8, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== EPIC Prevails in "Internet Kill Switch" FOIA Case In a Freedom of Information Act case brought by EPIC against the Department of Homeland Security, a federal court has ruled that DHS may not withhold the agency's plan to deactivate wireless communications networks in a crisis. EPIC had sought "Standard Operating Procedure 303," also known as the "Internet Kill Switch," to determine whether the agency's plan could adversely impact free speech or public safety. EPIC filed the FOIA lawsuit in 2012 after the the technique was used by police in San Francisco to shut down cell service for protesters at a BART station, who had gathered peacefully to object to police practices. The federal court determined that DHS wrongly claimed that it could withhold SOP 303 as a "technique for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions." The phrase, the court explained, "refers only to acts by law enforcement after or during the prevention of a crime, not crime prevention techniques." The court repeatedly emphasized that FOIA exemptions are to be read narrowly. US District Court, DC: Opinion in EPIC v. DHS (Nov. 12, 2013) EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - SOP 303 EPIC: FOIA EPIC Obtains Information on Government-Corporate Cyber Practices As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has obtained documents revealing that the Department of Defense required companies to disclose information about Internet traffic on private networks. These documents contradict Homeland Security's assertions that companies participating in a DOD pilot project would not be compelled to transmit information to federal agencies. The documents obtained by EPIC under the FOIA also indicate that the National Security Agency, a branch of the Department of Defense, is engaging in offensive cybersecurity measures. In a 2012 statement to the US Senate Judiciary Committee, EPIC warned that the National Security Agency has become a "black box" for public information about cybersecurity. EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - Defense Contractor Monitoring EPIC: List of FOIA Documents in Defense Contractor Monitoring Case EPIC: FOIA Document on Defense Contractor Monitoring (2007) DHS: Privacy Impact Assessment on JCSP (Jan. 13, 2012) EPIC: Statement to US Senate Judiciary Committee re: NSA (Mar. 12, 2012) Leahy, Sensenbrenner Introduce USA FREEDOM Act Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chair of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, and Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), an author of the USA PATRIOT Act, have introduced the USA FREEDOM Act, which would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and limit NSA surveillance activities. A bi-partisan coalition, including 17 US senators and 70 members of Congress, have joined as original co- sponsors. Key provisions of the FREEDOM Act increase transparency of intelligence activities, prevent end-runs around the FISA Court, and improve public reporting. In 2012 EPIC testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the need to reform FISA and to improve oversight of the FISA court. The FREEDOM Act also ends the NSA's controversial bulk phone records collection program. EPIC has brought a challenge in the US Supreme Court to the phone records program, explaining that it is unlawful under current law. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI): Text of USA FREEDOM Act (Oct. 29, 2013) US House: Judiciary Committee Hearing on FISA (May 31, 2012) EPIC: NSA Order to Verizon re: Telephone Metadata (Apr. 23, 2013) EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court re: NSA Verizon Order (Jul. 8, 2013) EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) FAA Releases Drone Roadmap; Privacy Not Required for Test Sites The Federal Aviation Administration has announced a "roadmap" for the integration of drones into domestic airspace. After considering numerous public comments on the privacy impact of aerial drones, the FAA proposed a regulation that requires test site operators to develop privacy policies but does not require any specific baseline privacy protections. The FAA rulemaking came about in response to an extensive petition submitted by EPIC, broadly supported by civil liberties organizations and the general public. In comments to the FAA, EPIC also urged the agency to require adherence to the Fair Information Practices, disclosure of data collection and minimization practices, and independent audits. FAA: Press Release on Drone "Integration Roadmap" (Nov. 7, 2013) FAA: Text of Drone "Integration Roadmap" (Nov. 7, 2013) FAA: Drone Privacy Regulation (Nov. 7, 2013) EPIC: Petition to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Mar. 8, 2012) EPIC: Comments to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Apr. 23, 2013) EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== "Meet the Punk Rocker Who Can Liberate Your FBI File." Mother Jones, Nov. 13, 2013. files-lawsuit "The private information Facebook now makes public." CNET, Nov. 12, 2013. information-facebook-now-makes-public/ "San Diego quietly slips facial recognition into the hands of law enforcers." Naked Security, Nov. 12, 2013. slips-facial-recognition-into-the-hands-of-law-enforcers/ "Judge: Show me Obama foreign aid order." Politico, Nov. 11, 2013. me-obama-foreign-aid-order-177173.html "White House considers civilian for NSA chief." The Hill, Nov. 9, 2013. house-considers-civilian-for-nsa-chief "FAA to Map Out Drone Rules." The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 6, 2013. SB10001424052702304672404579182231865599284 "Senator Pushes for Protection From Drones' Prying Eyes." NextGov, Nov. 6, 2013. drones-prying-eyes/73340/?oref=ng-dropdown Letter to the Editor: "Protecting Data Privacy" by EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. The New York Times, Nov. 5, 2013. html?_r=1& "NSA Files: Decoded." The Guardian, Nov. 1, 2013. nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1 For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================== [8] EPIC Book Review: 'The Circle' ======================================================================== "The Circle," Dave Eggers Author Dave Eggers' new novel, "The Circle," raises a host of issues about privacy, transparency, and human interaction that parallels our own current and growing struggle between the promise of technology, big data, and greater transparency, and the importance of privacy and personal human interaction. The novel takes place at "the Circle," now the world's leading Internet company. Thanks to the Circle, all Internet users now have a single, verified login called TruYou by which all Internet activity is conducted transparently, in your own name. Protagonist Mae Holland is hired to work at the Circle after her friend and Circle all-star employee, Annie, refers her for a job. The novel opens with Mae's first day at the Circle, including her tour of the Circle campus, replete with the many perks so often associated with Silicon Valley companies. Somehow the tour guide seems to already know almost everything about Mae, foreshadowing Mae's trajectory within the company and the ambitions of the Circle itself. Mae completely embraces the culture of the Circle--one of "passion, participation and transparency" as it is described by a Circle employee - and not unlike today's Silicon Valley companies. As the leading social networking company, the Circle expects employees to fully incorporate constant online social interaction, seemingly to the detriment of genuine human interaction. The novel's rapid scene changes move the narrative at an ever- quickening pace. The fast pacing is paralleled by Mae's quick ascent within the company, culminating in her position as an ambassador for the Circle's new "transparency" venture. Mae must wear a small device around her neck that provides a live video and sound feed of every waking moment, to be followed by anyone in the world. "Going transparent," as it called, is the next big thing the Circle expects everyone to eventually adopt. With the focus on the amazing positives of "going transparent" and other Circle ventures, very few people within the novel to stop to think if society should do this. Only a mysterious Circle employee named Kalden and Mae's boyfriend, Mercer, provide any warnings about the ramifications of the Circle's path for society. There are few dissenters against the Circle's creation of a surveillance society in the name of doing good. Of course, that may be the point -- the allure of technology and its promises of a better world cause us to unwittingly trade away our privacy. --Jeramie D. Scott ========================================== EPIC Bookstore =========================================== "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 ======================================================================= "Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance." Speaker: EPIC Domestic Surveillance Counsel Amie Stepanovich. Washington, DC, 16-17 November 2013. For More Information: Georgetown University Law Center Presents "Surveillance and Foreign Intelligence Gathering in the United States: The Current State of Play." Speaker: Marc Rotenberg, EPIC Executive Director. Washington, DC, 19 November 2013. For More Information: data=hHr80o3M7J4cNBdzLmXhMPSk4uMhML0Ge4MQOWooxoMG7fBoD9vseXpXU40kWQ8f ======================================================================= 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 20.22------------------------

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback