WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2013 >> [2013] EPICAlert 6

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

EPIC Alert 20.06 [2013] EPICAlert 6

EPIC Alert 20.06

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 20.06 March 31, 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== [1] US Supreme Court: Dog Sniff at Doorway is 'Search' [2] TSA Begins Court-Ordered Rulemaking on 'Nude' Body Scanners [3] EPIC Testifies at Senate Drones Hearing, Submits Drone Petition [4] EPIC Sues Ed. Dept., Seeks Docs on Debt Collectors, Student Privacy [5] EPIC Highlights Need for Broad Reform of Federal Privacy Law [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Bookstore [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Comment on the TSA's 'Nude' Airport Body Scanners! - COMMENT to the TSA: - READ the TSA's Rulemaking: - READ EPIC's Recommendations: Recommendations.pdf - LEARN More: - SUPPORT EPIC: ======================================================================== [1] US Supreme Court: Dog Sniff at Doorway is 'Search' ======================================================================== The US Supreme Court has ruled in the case Florida v. Jardines that the use of a drug-sniffing dog to investigate the front door of a home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that law enforcement officials require a warrant in order to trespass onto the area just outside, or the "curtilage" of, an individual's home to investigate potential criminal conduct. In Jardines, police officers walked up to the front door of a house with a drug-sniffing dog. The dog smelled marijuana emanating from the front door and signaled the officers. Based on this information, the police obtained a warrant, searched the house, found drugs, and arrested the homeowner, Jardines, who challenged the dog-sniff of his front door as an illegal search. "That the officers learned what they learned only by physically intruding on Jardines' property to gather evidence is enough to establish that a search occurred," Justice Antonin Scalia concluded in his majority opinion. "When 'the Government obtains information by physically intruding' on persons, houses, papers, or effects, 'a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment' has undoubtedly occurred." Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, wrote a concurring opinion explaining that the case could have also been resolved by examining Jardines' privacy interests. In Justice Kagan's view, the use of a device (such as a specially trained dog) "not in general public use" to "explore the details of the home" violates a homeowner's reasonable expectation of privacy and is therefore a search. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, dissented from the majority opinion. Justice Alito wrote that the police did not violate the Constitution and Jardines did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in smells emanating from his home. The right to approach the front door of a house "even extends to police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant." EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in a related Supreme Court police dog case, Florida v. Harris, asking the Court to "consider the reliability of the [dog-sniff] technique, the impact upon privacy, and the purpose of the Fourth Amendment." The Court decided against respondent Harris earlier in 2013. US Supreme Court: Decision in Florida v. Jardines (Mar. 26, 2013) EPIC: Florida v. Jardines EPIC: Florida v. Harris EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Florida v. Harris (Aug. 31, 2012) ======================================================================== [2] TSA Begins Court-Ordered Rulemaking on 'Nude' Body Scanners ======================================================================== The Transportation Security Administration announced March 26 that it will begin a public comment process on airport screening procedures. The rulemaking is a result of EPIC's long campaign advocating for public comments on the TSA's use of airport body scanners, particularly the backscatter, or "nude," scanner machines. EPIC twice petitioned the Department of Homeland Security for a public rulemaking on body scanners. After the agency failed to heed the petitions, EPIC filed suit. In EPIC v. DHS, the Federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit found in 2011 that the agency unlawfully deployed body scanners in US airports. The DC Circuit Court ordered DHS and thus the TSA to "promptly" undertake the proper rulemaking procedures and allow the public to comment on the body scanner program. More than a year and a half after the court order, the TSA has proposed a two-sentence change to the agency's extensive regulations: "(d) The screening and inspection described in (a) may include the use of advanced imaging technology. For purposes of this section, advanced imaging technology is defined as screening technology used to detect concealed anomalies without requiring physical contact with the individual being screened." The TSA seeks to grant itself authority to continue to deploy the body scanners without the establishment of privacy safeguards. EPIC is urging public comment on the agency proposal, recommending that the TSA adopt more effective screening procedures. If the TSA continues with the current body scanner program, EPIC says, the agency should make clear the right of individuals to opt-out as well as clarify the TSA's obligation to add software filters to all screening devices. Congress had mandated that the TSA add privacy software to all body scanners by June 2012 — a deadline TSA extended to June 2013. Last year, TSA indicated that it would no longer purchase backscatter x-ray devices for deployment in US airports and was moving the backscatter devices to smaller airports for "efficiency" - continuing, however, to use the less intrusive but still controversial millimeter-wave scanners. At a subsequent House oversight hearing in November 2012, Congress learned that the TSA had shipped millions of dollars worth of backscatter x-ray machines to warehouses because of issues around adding privacy software to the machines. During that same House oversight hearing, DHS claimed that it did not "underestimate the privacy concerns of the public." EPIC is urging the public to use the online system to submit comments on the agency proposal, which will be available until June 24, 2013:!submitComment;D=TSA-2013-0004-0001. EPIC: Comment on the TSA Nude Body Scanner Proposal EPIC: TSA Body Scanners, Submit Comments!submitComment;D=TSA-2013-0004-0001 EPIC: TSA Body Scanners, Docket Folder!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 EPIC: TSA Body Scanners, Recommendations for Commenters EPIC: TSA Body Scanners, Preliminary Analysis of Issues EPIC v. DHS, 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011) ======================================================================== [3] EPIC Testifies at Senate Drones Hearing, Submits Drone Petition ======================================================================== At a March 20 US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "The Future of Drones in America," EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project Director Amie Stepanovich testified in support of new US drone privacy safeguards. Also testifying at the hearing were drone expert Ryan Calo of the University of Washington and representatives of law enforcement and the drone industry. Senators from both parties expressed support for the development of new privacy legislation. In their respective opening statements, both Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), acknowledged domestic drones' potential impact on Americans' privacy rights. In her testimony, EPIC's Stepanovich emphasized drones' unique threats to privacy and the inadequacy of current law. Stepanovich further recommended that drone legislation should include limitations on use and data retention, as well as provide transparency and public accountability, including "any use of drones to collect information that would not otherwise be retrievable without a physical trespass." Documents recently obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has deployed domestic drones with the ability to intercept electronic communication and to identify human targets, and that the drones' specifications do not "require strict adherence to. . . FAA . . . regulations or military specifications governing hardware, testing, technical data, handbooks or other practices associated with standard equipment design." The documents also raise questions about the Bureau's compliance with federal privacy laws and the scope of domestic surveillance. CBP drones have been made available to other federal, state, and local agencies. In response to information in the documents, EPIC has petitioned the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, demanding the suspension of the drone program pending the development of privacy regulations. Thirty organizations and more than a thousand individuals have signed EPIC's petition. In early 2012, EPIC petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration over the agency's use of domestic drones. The FAA responded directly to EPIC in early 2013 and announced a public rulemaking on the privacy impact of aerial drones. At EPIC's urging, the agency stated it will consider privacy in addition to safety as it moves forward with the integration of domestic drones in US airspace. US Senate: Hearing: "The Future of Drones in America" (Mar. 20, 2013) EPIC: Testimony Before Senate Judiciary Committee (Mar. 20, 2013) EPIC: FOIA Docs re: CBP Drone Performance Specs (Mar. 2010) EPIC: Domestic Drones Petition EPIC: Petition to FAA re: Drones (Feb. 24, 2012) EPIC: FAA Letter to EPIC re: Drones (Feb. 14, 2013) EPIC: Drones and UAVs ======================================================================== [4] EPIC Sues Ed. Dept., Seeks Docs on Debt Collectors, Student Privacy ======================================================================== EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act complaint against the US Department of Education following the agency's failure to release documents about private student debt collection and compliance with federal privacy law. EPIC's lawsuit alleges that the Education Department "has failed to comply with its statutory deadlines and has failed to disclose a single record." According to EPIC's lawsuit, The Department of Education 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. Federal law requires that these debt collectors, as federal contractors, adhere to certain privacy practices and safeguards under the Privacy Act of 1974. 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 Department is expected to publish an update to a procedural manual that instructs debt collectors on privacy safeguards. The "PCA Procedures Manual," last published in 2009, describes debt collection compliance under the Privacy Act. The Department is similarly supposed to require debt collectors to submit compliance reports to the agency. Because the Education Department has not released updated documents since 2009, EPIC sought release of the procedures manual and compliance reports for the last three years. After the Department failed to disclose any records in response to the FOIA request, EPIC sued in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. EPIC: Complaint against ED re: Private Debt Collection (Mar. 15, 2013) Education Department: 2009 "PCA Procedures Manual" EPIC: Initial FOIA Request to ED re: Debt Collection (Sept. 20, 2012) EPIC: Student Privacy ======================================================================== [5] EPIC Highlights Need for Broad Reform of Federal Privacy Law ======================================================================== The US House Committee on the Judiciary is set to begin hearings to determine if, and how, the Electronic Communications Protection Act should be modified. The Judiciary Committee describes ECPA as a law that "was designed to provide rules for government surveillance in the modern age." It governs, for example, when law enforcement may search a person's email messages without a warrant, or without meeting the legal standard of "probable cause," which is required for the police to perform physical, non-electronic searches. The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations is considering updates to this nearly 30-year-old law to keep pace with the evolution of modern technology and "to reflect our current digital economy while preserving constitutional protections." The Subcommittee's statement of intention to modernize ECPA stated, "In updating a law passed before the creation of the Internet, the modernization of ECPA needs to provide electronic communications with protection comparable to their more traditional counterparts and take into account the recent boom in new technologies like cloud computing, social networking sites and video streaming." EPIC, which was invited to submit a statement for the record, has recommended a comprehensive ECPA review. EPIC's statement describes Google's Wi-Fi interceptions as an example of why ECPA should be updated to address technological phenomena that didn't exist at the time of its drafting. The statement also explains how ECPA's language has become incoherent, particularly with respect to the Act's use of the term "electronic storage": In the years following ECPA's passage, "electronic storage" has become a complicated and multi-faceted concept, which is no longer useful to describe specific privacy protections. EPIC also noted the lower courts' growing confusion about the application of ECPA, particularly with respect to user location privacy. EPIC pointed out that, "[e]ven though many courts agree that Fourth Amendment protections apply to location data, they do not agree on what legal process is necessary to satisfy the standard." Furthermore, according to EPIC, the courts' disagreement on the nature of the legal problem is compounded by the lack of federal legislation interpreting the accompanying technical problem. Thus, "Courts are ill equipped to establish clear standards due to the technically and factually complex nature of the problem." EPIC's statement concludes, "By pursuing a broad legislative overhaul of current electronic privacy laws, Congress can establish important new privacy safeguards for personal information. This is especially important given the growing dependence of consumers on cloud-based services that routinely store user data on remote servers." EPIC also has encouraged the Committee to address the recent settlement between states' Attorneys General and Google over Google's Street View data collection, as well as federal officials' reluctance to pursue a similar investigation; an updated, modernized ECPA would be ideally timed to resolve the Google Street View issue. US House of Representatives: Committee on the Judiciary EPIC: Letter to House Judiciary Committee on ECPA (Mar. 18, 2013) House Judiciary Committee: Hearings on ECPA (Mar. 19, 2013) CT AG Office: Press Release on Street View Settlement (Mar. 12, 2013) EPIC: Jennings v. Broome EPIC: Electronic Communications Privacy Act EPIC: Locational Privacy ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== Court Rules for EPIC, Denies FBI Request for Delay in StingRay Case A federal judge in Washington, DC has issued an opinion denying the FBI's motion to delay the release of records sought by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act. The decision follows from EPIC's lawsuit against the FBI for records about the agency's use of cell-site simulator technology, commonly referred to as "StingRay," which track cell phones and collect a vast amount of data from telephone customers. The court found that the FBI was not facing the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to justify the proposed two-year delay, and ordered the agency to produce all records, except those subject to classification review, by Aug. 1, 2013. Washington, DC District Court: Opinion on EPIC v. FBI (Mar. 28, 2013) EPIC: Complaint Against FBI in StingRay Case (Apr. 26, 2012) EPIC v. FBI - Stingray / Cell Site Simulator EPIC, Privacy Groups Ask FTC Chair to Appoint Consumer Advocate EPIC and over 30 other privacy and consumer groups have written to FTC Chair Edith Ramirez, urging her to appoint a Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection who is "independent of industry" and has a "well- established consumer rights and public interest background." The letter follows the departure of CPB director David Vladeck. EPIC also has urged the Commission to require compliance with the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights for companies that violate consumer privacy. EPIC et al.: Letter to FTC's Ramirez re: BCP Director (Mar. 19, 2013) FTC: Press Release re: Resignation of CPB Head Vladeck (Dec. 17, 2012) EPIC: Letter to US Senate Commerce Committee re: CPBR (Dec. 4, 2012) EPIC: Federal Trade Commission Federal Aviation Administration to Hold Public Meeting on Drone Privacy The Federal Aviation Administration will hold a public meeting on a proposed privacy policy approach for domestic drone test sites. The FAA seeks comments from the public on proposed privacy requirements; these include drone operators creating privacy policies based on Fair Information Practices. EPIC previously submitted an extensive petition to the FAA encouraging the agency to address privacy issues associated with domestic drone use. Earlier in 2013, the FAA announced it would begin a public rulemaking on the privacy impact of drones. In a letter to EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg, the FAA Chief Counsel stated, “The FAA recognizes that increasing the use of [drones] raises privacy concerns. The agency intends to address these issues through engagement and collaboration with the public." Fed. Register: Notice of FAA Public Meeting on US Drones (Mar. 28, 2013) Fed. Register: Request for Public Comment on US Drones (Mar. 28, 2013) EPIC: Petition to FAA re: US Drones (Mar. 8, 2012) FAA: Announcement of Public Rulemaking on Drones (Feb. 14, 2013) EPIC: Letter from FAA re: Drone Privacy (Feb. 14, 2013) EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones Rep. Markey Introduces Drone Privacy Legislation Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) has introduced the "Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013." The bill sets out comprehensive transparency requirements for drone operators to protect personal privacy from unregulated drone surveillance. Under the terms of the bill, drone operators would be required to submit a detailed data collection and data minimization statement prior to obtaining a license to operate drones within the US. The bill also states that surveillance by law enforcement agencies will require a warrant or extreme exigent circumstances. Congressman Markey stated that privacy legislation is necessary to "prevent flying robots from becoming spying robots." Rep. Ed Markey: Press Release on Drone Privacy Bill (Mar. 19, 2013) Rep. Ed Markey: Text of Drone Privacy Bill (Mar. 19, 2013) EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones Fed Appeals Court Rejects "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" Secrecy Defense The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ruled that the CIA must respond to an ACLU open government request for records pertaining to drone strikes. The CIA had said it could “neither confirm nor deny that it had responsive documents." The appeals court found that the CIA itself had acknowledged it had such documents. In EPIC v. NSA, a similar challenge to the so-called "Glomar" response, the federal appeals court found that the agency had not acknowledged existence of documents responsive to a FOIA request even though there were widespread news reports of a partnership between Google and the NSA. DC Appeals Court: Opinion in ACLU v. CIA (Mar. 15, 2013) EPIC: EPIC v. NSA: Google / NSA Relationship WSJ: "Google Working With NSA to Investigate Cyber Attack" (Feb. 2010) Social Security Admin. Considers Stronger Privacy Safety for Kids' SSNs The Social Security Administration is seeking public comment on a proposal to assign new Social Security numbers to children age 13 and under. Currently, the agency may assign new SSNs only if it has evidence that "a third party has improperly used an adult's or child's SSN, the number holder was not at fault, and the number holders was recently disadvantaged by the misuse." Under the proposed policy, the agency would issue a new SSN to a child if: (1) the child's Social Security card is stolen in transit from the agency to the child's address; (2) the SSA erroneously discloses a child's SSN through the SSA's Death Master File; or (3) a third party misuses the child's SSN. The agency would no longer require evidence that the child was disadvantaged due to misuse in any of these situations. EPIC favors the proposed rule change. Public comments on the proposal are due April 12, 2013. EPIC has previously warned Congress about SSN fraud and the growing problem of identity theft. Fed. Register: SSA Request for Comment on SSN Changes (Mar. 4, 2013) EPIC: Testimony Before US House on SSNs and ID Fraud (Jun. 21, 2007) EPIC: Social Security Numbers ======================================================================= [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================= "Civilian Drones Come With Both Risk And Reward." The Huffington Post, Mar. 30, 2013. 2984127.html "Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting 'Excessive' Online Privacy Laws." Mother Jones, Mar. 29, 2013. internet-privacy-coalition "Drone Industry Worries About Privacy Backlash." NPR, Mar. 29, 2013. "In Public Records Suit, No Extra Time for the FBI." Blog of Legal Times, Mar. 28, 2013. no-extra-time-for-the-fbi-a-federal-judge-today-refused-to-allow- the-us-justice-department-to-p.html "Feds Accused of Hiding Information From Judges About Covert Cellphone Tracking Tool." Slate, Mar. 28, 2013. surveillance_technology_used_without_proper_approval_report.html "FBI prepares to defend 'Stingray' cell phone tracking." CNet, Mar. 27, 2013. defend-stingray-cell-phone-tracking/ "TSA to Heed Formal Gripes over Body Scans." NextGov, Mar. 25, 2013. body-scans/62051/ "Your car may be invading your privacy." USA Today, Mar. 25, 2013. data-privacy/1991751/ "Anti-Drone Revolt Prompts Push For New Federal, State Laws." CNET, Mar. 22, 2013. prompts-push-for-new-federal-state-laws/ "Who is Stockpiling and Sharing Private Information About New York Students?" The Village Voice, Mar. 22, 2013. "Drone use in U.S. may require new laws, Senate panel told." CNN, Mar. 21, 2013. "Aerial Drone Use in the US [Video]." C-SPAN, Mar. 20, 2013. "Drones will require new privacy laws, Senate told." US News & World Report, Mar. 20, 2013. will-require-new-privacy-laws-senate-told "Is Your Cloud Drive Really Private? Not According to Fine Print." NBC News, Mar. 15, 2013. really-private-not-according-fine-print-1C8881731 For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================== [8] 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 ======================================================================= "Travel Surveillance, Traveler Intrusion," sponsored by the Cato Institute. Speaker: Ginger McCall, Director, EPIC Open Government Project. Washington, DC, 2 April 2013. For More Information: "Data Collection, Data Mining, Data Brokers and Consumer Privacy," National Association of Attorneys General Annual conference. Speaker: EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg. 14 April 2013, National Harbor, MD. For More Information: registration.php. "ASAP 6th Annual National Training Conference." Speaker: Ginger McCall, Director, EPIC Open Government Project. 15 May 2013, Arlington, VA. For More Information: 2013/index.cfm. EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner. 3 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More Information: 2013 Health Privacy Summit, 5-6 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More Information: privacy-summit/event-summary-1bfa9be80d364092aeed1a8803377fa8.aspx. 22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference. 25-26 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More Information: Contact Chris Calabrese at ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET. Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC. ======================================================================= Privacy Policy ======================================================================= The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." ======================================================================= About EPIC ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, see or write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). ======================================================================= Donate to EPIC ======================================================================= If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at: Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy and efforts to oppose government and private-sector infringement on constitutional values. Thank you for your support. ======================================================================= Subscription Information ======================================================================= Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface: Back issues are available at: The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier. ------------------------- END EPIC Alert 20.06------------------------

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback