EPIC Alert 20.04
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 20.04 March 3, 2013
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 Supreme Court Blocks Challenge to FISA Surveillance
 EPIC Obtains Counterterrorism Data-Collection Docs on
 EPIC Challenges Secret Statute in WikiLeaks Case
 EPIC: DHS Backscatter Training Manuals Don't Include Privacy
 FTC Approves Final Settlement with Consumer Tracking Firm
 News in Brief
 EPIC in the News
 Book Review: 'When
Gadgets Betray Us'
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
TAKE ACTION: Sign EPIC's Petition to Suspend CBP's Drone Program!
the FAA Announcement: http://epic.org/redirect/030113-FAA.html
- LEARN about Drones: http://epic.org/privacy/drones/
- SUPPORT EPIC: http://www.epic.org/donate/
 Supreme Court Blocks Challenge to FISA Surveillance
The US Supreme Court ruled February 26 that Clapper v.
International USA, a constitutional challenge to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), could not go forward,
that the case's Respondents had not presented sufficient proof to
establish standing to sue the federal government.
In 2008, a group of attorneys and journalists alleged that the US
government could be intercepting their communications with their
foreign contacts in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The FISA
Amendments Act allows the National Security Agency to warrantlessly
intercept electronic communications with overseas persons so long as no
US persons are "intentionally targeted." The Respondents,
communicate with individuals who have links to Al Qaeda, said the
government almost certainly was intercepting their
without a court order.
In a divided 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the group's
were too speculative to be considered. The Court's
majority said that the group could not prove, with "certainly
that the government has intercepted or would
intercept their communications. The Court also stated that the group's
and attempts to avoid government surveillance were
likewise insufficient to have their case heard. Chief Justice Roberts
Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas also signed on to the majority
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan,
Sotomayor, dissented, stating that the Court's "certainly impending"
standard was inconsistent with prior decisions. Justice
that to be heard in court, a party need only show a reasonable
apprehension or "reasonable probability" that they
will be injured by
the government's actions. Breyer wrote that these attorneys and
journalists communicate with exactly the types
of individuals that the
government would have an interest in monitoring, and therefore making
it likely that their communications
are being or would be intercepted.
Justice Breyer also cited EPIC's "friend of the court" brief, which
described the NSA's "almost
boundless capacity to intercept private
communications, including those of U.S. Persons." EPIC's brief also
discussed the history
of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, the NSA's
expanding capabilities, and FISA's lack of transparency or oversight.
Court: Opinion in Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l (Feb. 26, 2013)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court Brief" in Clapper v. Amnesty
EPIC: Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA
 EPIC Obtains Counterterrorism Data-Collection Docs
on US Citizens
As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained
previously secret training slides from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence detailing
the agency's guidelines for collection,
dissemination, and retention of information about United States
citizens. EPIC had sued
ODNI in August 2012 after the agency failed to
respond to several EPIC FOIA requests about ODNI's plan to increase
The documents recently obtained by EPIC as a result of the lawsuit
outline ODNI's policies for collecting data and
shed light on the legal
standard to retain data indefinitely. The guidelines allow for
unlimited retention of information about
US persons if there is a
"reasonable and articulable suspicion" that the information is
terrorism information. However, the agency
concedes that "there is no
requirement that the analyst's wisdom be rock solid or infallible" and
allows retention "even if the
facts individually appear innocent in
nature." EPIC is still seeking documents about the agency's
privacy protections, and mechanisms to
correct errors in databases. EPIC's FOIA request was sparked by the
March 2012 update to
the National Counterterrorism Center guidelines,
which now allow the retention of data for up to five years on US
have no obvious connection to terrorist activities.
EPIC has filed other Freedom of Information Act requests with the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, seeking the "priority
list" of databases ODNI planned to copy;
data accuracy and security
safeguards; agreements and disputes between the ODNI and agency heads;
and interpretations of key standards
used to identify "terrorism
EPIC previously has sought documents related to the collection of
information on US
persons. Currently EPIC is suing the Central
Intelligence Agency to release a report prepared by the CIA Inspector
addresses possible domestic surveillance by the agency.
ODNI: NCTC Training Guideline Slides Obtained by EPIC under FOIA
EPIC: 1st FOIA Request to ODNI (Mar. 28, 2012)
EPIC: 2nd FOIA Request to ODNI (June 14, 2012)
EPIC: FOIA Lawsuit Against ODNI (Aug. 1, 2012)
EPIC: EPIC v. ODNI
EPIC: EPIC v. CIA - Domestic Surveillance
 EPIC Challenges Secret Statute in WikiLeaks Case
EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the US
Department of Justice, seeking information on the agency's reliance on
secret legal authority to conduct
surveillance of individuals who have
expressed interest in WikiLeaks.
EPIC's FOIA request stemmed from a November 2010 incident
WikiLeaks posted 220 confidential American diplomatic cables on the
WikiLeaks.org web site. The US government attempted
to restrict access
to the documents, and subsequently opened an investigation into the
WikiLeaks release, attempting to identify
users who accessed the
WikiLeaks documents. The federal investigation included inquiries into
Amazon.com, the company that hosted
the WikiLeaks website, as well as
PayPal and other online payment processors who facilitated donations
In June 2011,
EPIC submitted FOIA requests to the Criminal and National
Security Divisions of the Department of Justice, and to the Federal
of Investigation. EPIC requested records including: any
individuals targeted for surveillance because of their support for or
in WikiLeaks; lists of names of individuals who have
demonstrated support for or interest in WikiLeaks; agency
Internet or social media companies about
individuals who have demonstrated support for or interest in
WikiLeaks; and any agency
communications with financial services
companies about individuals who may have donated money to WikiLeaks.
To date, the FBI and
both DOJ divisions have failed to provide any
documents in response to EPIC's June 2011 requests. EPIC filed
with the FBI and the National Security Division
of the DOJ in September 2011, and with the DOJ's Criminal Division in
The DOJ has withheld from disclosure certain information
responsive to the EPIC request but will not reveal the legal basis for
In January 2012, EPIC filed a lawsuit against both the DOJ and the FBI
based on the agencies' non-responsiveness
to EPIC's request, and to
compel the disclosure of the requested documents. EPIC's lawsuit
maintains that secret law "poses unique
concerns to democratic
governance and undermines the purpose of the FOIA."
EPIC: Opposition to Defendant's Motion in EPIC v.
DOJ (Feb. 18, 2013)
EPIC: Administrative Appeal in EPIC v. DHS (WikiLeaks) (Aug. 5, 2011)
EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ (WikiLeaks)
EPIC: Open Government
 EPIC: DHS Backscatter Training Manuals Don't Include
In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request, the
Department of Homeland Security has released documents on US Secret
Service's use of backscatter machines. EPIC sought
the types of images captured by backscatter devices, the length of time
the images can be stored, and safeguards
for maintaining the integrity
and security of the captured images. EPIC also requested any
information from DHS about body scanner
The FOIA materials received by EPIC include the sales contract between
the US government and body scanner manufacturer
Rapiscan, and the
Secret Service's training manuals for instructing new recruits on the
operation of body scanners. The training
materials make no mention of
In the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012", Congress mandated
that all airport
body scanners be equipped with privacy-enhancing
software by June 1, 2012. The documents do not specify whether the
used by the US Secret Service comply with this mandate.
EPIC sued the Department of Homeland Security in 2012 to force
of technical documents about the body scanner program. The
documents EPIC received reveal that DHS publicly mischaracterized the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's findings on
backscatter machines' safety, stating that NIST had "affirmed the
safety" of full body scanners. In fact, NIST never tested full-body
scanners for safety.
In a related lawsuit, EPIC v. DHS, the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals
determined in 2011 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. In the most recent decision, the court ordered
DHS to begin the
public comment process by March 2013. Despite the
court order for public comment on body scanners, in September 2012 the
of Homeland Security awarded $245 million in contracts for
body scanners without public input.
EPIC: FOIA Request to Secret Service
re: Body Scanners (Apr. 20, 2012)
US Secret Service: Contracts for Body Scanners
US Secret Service: Body Scanner Training Manual
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners
 FTC Approves Final Settlement with Consumer Tracking
The Federal Trade Commission has adopted a proposed
Compete Inc., a company that develops software for tracking consumers
as they shop, browse and interact with different
Web sites across the
Internet. As part of the Compete registration process, consumers
installed tracking software that "collected
the names of all Web sites
visited; all links followed; advertisements displayed when Web sites
were visited; and information that
consumers entered into some web
pages", even otherwise secure Web pages. Data collected including
credit card and financial account
numbers, usernames, passwords, and
The Commission's initial complaint alleged that Compete failed to adopt
data security practices and deceived consumers about the
amount of personal information collected by the toolbar and survey
The FTC also charged Compete with deceptive practices for
falsely claiming that the retained data had been anonymized. The
order requires Compete to obtain express consent from
consumers before collecting data. The company is similarly required to
or anonymize the data it has already collected and to provide
users with instructions for uninstallation of the Compete toolbar.
In November 2012 comments to the FTC, EPIC recommended that the agency
also require Compete to implement Fair Information Practices
those contained in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, and develop a
best-practices guide to de-identification techniques.
Privacy Bill of Rights, published by the White House in February 2012,
sets out a comprehensive framework of consumer
EPIC's comments maintained that Compete's adherence to the Consumer
Privacy Bill of Rights would impose requirements
on the company's
collection and use of personal social networking information, and
grant Compete users control over their data
and the right to access
and amend their personal information. Additionally, Compete should
have been required to develop best-practices
principles for de-
identification, thus providing "businesses and consumer groups
something more concrete against which to measure
claims of de-
identification and anonymity."
While the FTC declined to adopt EPIC's recommendations, the
that, as EPIC had noted, the FTC's "chief
technologists have discussed some anonymization techniques as an aid to
generally, the Commission does not provide specific
technical guidance in areas like this, which are constantly changing.
a company's responsibility to keep abreast of and select the
technology that it believes best meets its needs and requirements while
appropriately protecting consumer privacy."
FTC: Settlement with Compete Inc. (Feb. 20, 2013)
FTC: Letter to EPIC re: Compete Inc. Settlement (Feb. 20, 2013)
EPIC: Comments to FTC re: Compete Inc. (Nov. 19, 2012)
The White House: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (Feb. 2012)
EPIC: Federal Trade Commission
EPIC: Consumer Profiling
 News in Brief
EPIC Thanks Congress for FOIA Oversight, Calls for Focus on Transparency
EPIC, along with more than 40 government transparency
thanked the US House Committee on Oversight for sending a letter to the
Department of Justice about the importance
of the Freedom of
Information Act. The open-government organizations stated in the letter
to Oversight Committee Chairs Reps. Darell Issa (R-CA) and Elijah
(D-MD) that "outdated FOIA regulations, excessive fee
assessments, growing FOIA backlogs, and the misuse of exemptions are
that continually frustrate FOIA requesters" and expressed hope
that the Committee would share the Department of Justice's responses
with the public. EPIC also joined more than two-dozen transparency
groups in a letter to President Obama, asking him to renew his
commitment to transparency and FOIA. The President issued a
memorandum on Transparency and Open Government in 2009.
Coalition: Letter to US House FOIA Committee (Feb. 19, 2013)
House Oversight Committee: Letter to OIP re: Open Govt. (Feb. 4, 2013)
Open Gov't Coalition: Letter to President Obama on FOIA (Feb. 19. 2013)
The White House: Memorandum on Transparency and Open Govt. (Jan. 2009)
EPIC: Open Government
'Sniff up to Snuff,' Says Supreme Court in Drug-Detecting Dog Case
The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled February 19 in Florida
that law enforcement may use drug-detection dogs to conduct searches
without a warrant, even when the dog finds drugs
it is not trained to
detect. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the search against
defendant Harris was unlawful because
the State failed to provide field
performance records to establish the dog's reliability. The Court, in
an opinion written by Justice
Elena Kagan, rejected the Florida court's
"inflexible checklist" of necessary evidence in favor of a more
standard." EPIC filed a "friend of the court"
brief in the case, arguing that "investigative techniques should be
used based on
research, testing, and data indicating reliability." EPIC
cited a recent National Academy of Sciences report highlighting the
of reliable standards for investigative techniques. Earlier in
February, the US Department of Justice announced a new initiative
improve forensics reliability.
EPIC: Florida v. Harris
US Supreme Court: Decision in Florida v. Harris (Feb. 19, 2013)
Florida Supreme Court: Decision in Florida v. Harris (Apr. 21, 2011)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Florida v. Harris (Aug. 31, 2012)
National Academies: "Strengthening Forensic Science in the US" (2009)
Sen. P. Leahy (D-VT): Press Release on US DoJ Forensics (Feb. 15, 2013)
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments On Warrantless DNA Collection
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in Maryland v. King, a
centering on whether the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless,
suspicionless DNA collection from anyone arrested, but not convicted,
of a "serious crime." Petitioner State of Maryland will argue that
states should be permitted to use DNA to investigate cold cases
when the arrestee is not a suspect. Respondent King will argue that the
Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause warrant
for routine law
enforcement investigations. EPIC, joined by 27 technical experts and
legal scholars, filed a "friend of the court"
brief in the case that
describes how DNA collection and use "has grown dramatically and
unpredictably over time." EPIC has asked
the US Supreme Court to affirm
the decision of the Maryland Supreme Court, which held that a warrant
is required for the collection
of a DNA sample.
US Supreme Court: Maryland v. King
ABA: Petition of State of MD in Maryland v. King (Dec. 26, 2012)
ABA: Petition of Respondent King in Maryland v. King (Jan. 2013)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Maryland v. King (Feb. 1, 2013)
EPIC: Maryland v. King
EPIC: Genetic Privacy
New Legislation Aimed At Protecting Privacy From Domestic Drones
US Representatives Ted Poe (R-TX) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) have
introduced the "Preserving American Privacy Act of 2013," a bill
designed to provide individual privacy protections against drone
surveillance. The bill requires all US drone operators to submit a
public data collection statement that includes a description
drone's purpose and intended operations. The bill also requires a
warrant in order for drone surveillance information to
be received as
evidence, and includes a ban on equipping drones with firearms. EPIC
twice has asked Congress to protect individual
privacy against increased
use of domestic drones. In 2012, EPIC, joined by over 100 organizations,
experts, and members of the
public, petitioned the FAA to establish
Rep. Ted Poe: Press Release on Drone Privacy Bill (Feb. 13, 2013)
"Preserving American Privacy Act of 2013"
EPIC: Testimony Before US Congress on Drones (Jul. 12, 2012)
EPIC: Testimony Before US Congress on Drones (Oct. 25, 2012)
EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA on Domestic Drone Use (Mar. 8, 2012)
EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
DHS Working Group to Consider Privacy Impact of Drones
The Department of Homeland Security has released a previously internal
memo regarding the establishment of a working group to "Safeguard
Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in the Department's
Support of Unmanned Aerial Systems [drones]." The memo states, "[t]he
overarching goal of the working group is to determine
what policies and
procedures are needed to ensure that protections for privacy, civil
rights, and civil liberties are designed
into DHS and DHS-funded
[drone] programs." DHS has developed a program to explore the expansive
use of small drones for law enforcement.
US Customs and Border
Protection currently operates 10 Predator B drones within the US. In
testimony before Congress in July 2012,
EPIC said that federal agencies
operating drones should adopt privacy regulations.
DHS: Letter re: Release of Internal Memo
(Sept. 14, 2012)
DHS: Report on RAPS Drone Project (Nov. 16, 2012)
US CBP: Documents on Predator Drones (Aug. 17, 2012)
EPIC: Testimony Before US Congress on Drone Use (Jul. 12, 2012)
EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
EU Prepares Action Against Google
French data protection regulator CNIL, acting on behalf of the
European Union, has
announced it will take action against Google after
Google failed to reply to CNIL's questions about the company's
handling of user
information. EU authorities are setting up a working
group, led by CNIL, to coordinate their response. The group is expected
take action before summer 2013. In October 2012, officials
representing 24 European countries sent a letter to Google, requiring
it to comply with European data protection laws and give users greater
control over their personal information. The letter asked
clarify how it combines customer data from its various services, and
establishes precise data retention policies. Google
did not respond.
CNIL's action followed an investigation triggered by Google's change in
privacy policies in March 2012, which
allowed the company to combine
user data across 60 Internet services. Also in 2012, EPIC sued the
Federal Trade Commission to enforce
the terms of a prior settlement
with Google. Google has previously been sanctioned and fined by the FTC
for violating user privacy.
As a result, Google is subject to regular
privacy audits and is not allowed to make deceptive changes to privacy
CNIL: Letter to Google re: Privacy Policies (Oct. 16, 2012)
NAAG: Letter to Google re: Privacy Policies (Feb. 22, 2012)
Congressional Privacy Caucus: Letter to FTC re: Google (Feb. 17, 2012)
EPIC: In re Google Buzz
EPIC: Enforcement of Google Consent Order
EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive
 EPIC in the News
"The FAA Wants to Hear from You About Privacy and Domestic Drones."
Lawfare, Mar. 1, 2013.
"Predator Drones Keep an Eye on the Border, Documents Show." The New
York Times, Feb. 28, 2013.
"FTC, Compete Finalize Privacy Settlement." MediaPost, Feb. 25, 2013.
"Homeland Security: Let's be clear about aerial drone privacy." CNET,
Feb. 22, 2013.
"If You're Collecting Our Data, You Ought to Protect It." The New
York Times, Feb. 16, 2013.
"National Counterterrorism Center's 'Terrorist Information' Rules
Outlined In Document." The Huffington Post, Feb. 15, 2013.
"FBI Files Unlock History Behind Clandestine Cellphone Tracking Tool."
Slate, Feb. 15, 2013.
"FAA Promises Privacy Standards for Domestic Drones." Information
Week, Feb. 15, 2013.
"Google raises new privacy concerns with app store policy." Chicago
Tribune, Feb. 14, 2013.
For More EPIC in the News:
 Book Review: 'When Gadgets Betray Us'
"When Gadgets Betray Us: The Dark Side of Our Infatuation with New
Technology," Robert Vamosi
Robert Vamosi says your electronic devices are security incidents
waiting to happen. And if the devices themselves won't fail you,
hackers are waiting to grab your loose data and run. But security
researcher and tech journalist Vamosi's latest book, "When Gadgets
Betray Us: The Dark Side of Our Infatuation with New Technology," isn't
an anti-technology screed; rather, it's a reasoned, compelling,
even entertaining look at how consumer demand for faster, more
convenient and more feature-rich equipment is creating increasingly
dangerous insecure gadgets.
"How we use our gadgets is only half of the problem," Vamosi says.
"The other half is the hardware
itself. We fail to recognize that
these same gadgets can fail. Or that they can be made to lie. Or
track our every move." According
to Vamosi, "gadget betrayal" generally
falls into a few categories: security flaws exploitable by those with
security flaws inherent in software design and user
interface; and data "leakage" in a device's interaction with the
Sometimes the flaws are apparently accidental - as when security
researchers discovered in 2011 that iPhones were creating locational
"breadcrumb trails" of their owners. But that same data was used
purposely to create locational iOS apps like "Find My Friends,"
can be easily exploited by stalkers and data brokers.
"When Gadgets Betray Us" provides readers with an extensive vocabulary
of hacking techniques (buffer overflows, SQL injections, keystroke
logging, man-in-the-middle attacks) and an equally extensive
objects that can be hacked, leave "breadcrumb trails," or both (cars,
digital cameras, transponders, medical devices, smartphones).
stresses repeatedly, however, that he doesn't intend to frighten his
audience, but merely provide it with enough data to
decisions about how, where, and when they use their electronic devices.
Vamosi seems to have a fascination with
the ethically ambiguous
security hackers who frequent conventions like BlackHat and DefCon and
publicize security flaws of devices
ranging from electronic hotel keys
to medical implants to automobile "black boxes." Vamosi's response?:
Don't give up your gadgets
- just be careful. Security, he says, is
constructed in layers: If the hardware gets hacked, let your software
protect it. If your
device leaks data, harden it with encryption. Don't
make it easy for anyone - criminals, online advertisers, jilted
lovers - to
take down your gadget, your bank account, or your privacy.
Just like we lock our houses when we go out rather than staying
at home, we need to learn how to lock our electronic
"homes" - and demand better virtual locks from manufacturers. "'That's
security is,'" Vamosi says. "'Barriers to slow someone down.'"
- EC Rosenberg
"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall,
S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75
Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most
comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access
This updated version includes new material regarding President Obama's
2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's
March 2009 memo
on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The
standard reference work includes in-depth
analysis of litigation under:
the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated
2010 volume is the
25th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists
and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel
J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005).
This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information
privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental
concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The
Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of
law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more.
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive
for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law.
"Privacy & Human Rights
2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75.
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an
overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy
75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections,
new challenges, and important issues and events relating
Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy
and data protection ever published.
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the
process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals
future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for
individuals and organizations that wish to become more
involved in the
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International
and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price:
The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk
Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource
attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy
law in the United States and around the world.
It includes the full
texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD
Privacy Guidelines, as
well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials
include the APEC Privacy Framework, the
Video Voyeurism Prevention Act,
and the CAN-SPAM Act.
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives
on Internet Content
Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content
filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering
threatens free expression.
EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free
expression, and constitutional values can be ordered at:
EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of
interesting documents obtained
from government agencies under the
Freedom of Information Act.
Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
"Location Tracking and Biometrics Conference." 3 March 2013, Yale
University, New Haven, CT. For More Information:
"Drones.edu: Hands on the Future in the Classroom." SXSW, 6 March
2013, Austin, TX. For More Information: http://sxswedu.com/.
2013 D.C. Open Government Summit. 13 March 2013, Washington, DC.
For More Information: http://www.dcogc.org/node/1621.
"Online Privacy: Consenting to your Future." 21-22 March 2013,
Portomaso, Malta. For More Information:
EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner. 3 June 2013, Washington, DC.
For More Information: http://epic.org/june3.
2013 Health Privacy Summit, 5-6 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More
22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference. 25-26 June 2013,
Washington, DC. For More Information: Contact Chris Calabrese
Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter
Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter:
Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET.
Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts.
Stay up to date with EPIC's events.
The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to
send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent
or share our
mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal
process seeking access to our mailing list. We
do not enhance (link to
other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe
your e-mail address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is
a public interest research
center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public
attention on emerging privacy issues
such as the Clipper Chip, the
Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy,
and the collection and sale
of personal information. EPIC publishes the
EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts
policy research. For more information, see http://www.epic.org or write
EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202
483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).
Donate to EPIC
If you'd like to support the work of the
Electronic Privacy Information
Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks
should be made out to "EPIC" and
sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at:
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and
First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right
of privacy and efforts to oppose government and private-sector
infringement on constitutional values.
Thank you for your support.
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
Back issues are available at:
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 20.04------------------------