WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

EPIC Alert

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> EPIC Alert >> 2014 >> [2014] EPICAlert 18

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

EPIC Alert 21.17 [2014] EPICAlert 18

EPIC Alert 21.17

======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 21.17 September 15, 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC." ========================================================================= Table of Contents ========================================================================= [1] After EPIC FOIA, Army Retracts Plan for Video in DC Blimp [2] EPIC, Experts Support Privacy for Telephone Data in NSA Court Case [3] EPIC (Finally) Obtains Memos on Warrantless Wiretapping Program [4] FCC Fines Verizon $7.4 Million for Violating Consumer Privacy [5] EPIC Seeks Electronic Voting Security Report [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC in the News [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Hate Crimes in Cyberspace' [9] Upcoming Conferences and Events TAKE ACTION: Defend Student Privacy - Opt Out of Marketing! REQUEST Your Child's School's Privacy Policies: LEARN about Student Privacy: SUPPORT EPIC: ========================================================================= [1] After EPIC FOIA, Army Retracts Plan for Video in DC Blimp ========================================================================= Following the release of documents obtained by EPIC in a Freedom Information Act lawsuit, the Department of the Army now states it will not include video surveillance cameras in the two giant blimps scheduled to be deployed later this fall over the nation's capital. An Army spokesperson told The Washington Post that the so-called JLENS blimp will "'absolutely, 100 percent'" not include video capacity. Earlier in 2014, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Army for documents about the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor Systems, or JLENS. Prior to filing a Freedom of Information Act request, EPIC learned that defense contractor Raytheon was developing a new "add on" for the JLENS system. In early 2013, the company demoed a "Multi-Spectral Targeting System" with both electro-optical and infrared sensors. These capabilities, according to the manufacturer, will improve targeting of the missile system. They also make it easier to track and identify people moving on the ground. Raytheon states that it was able to identify, from one of the blimps set two miles in the air, a person in a role-playing exercise planting an improvised explosive device. Previous EPIC FOIA cases have revealed that the surveillance systems deployed in Washington, DC were used to monitor political protesters on the Capital Mall, and that DHS drones can be equipped with surveillance technologies that include human identification on the ground. In August 2014, EPIC received the first installment of the FOIA documents on JLENS, providing the public with substantial new information about the surveillance blimps, which were originally deployed in Iraq. According to the documents, JLENS is comprised of two 250-foot blimps. One blimp conducts aerial and ground surveillance, while the other has targeting capability including HELLFIRE missiles. The documents also reveal that the Army paid defense contractor Raytheon $1.6 billion to produce the blimp. EPIC will continue to receive documents related to JLENS through October 10, the Army's deadline for completing the document production. EPIC's goal in this lawsuit is to determine what surveillance data the Army plans to collect during the 3-year JLENS test. The case is EPIC v. Dept. of Army, 1:14-cv-00776 (D.D.C. filed May 6, 2014). The Washington Post: "Army Surveillance Balloons Stationed in Maryland Won't Include Spy Cameras" (Sep. 5, 2014) balloons-stationed-in-maryland-wont-include-spy-cameras/2014/09/05/ bbf8dda0-350c-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html EPIC: First Interim Document Production on JLENS (Aug. 19, 2014) EPIC: Complaint Against Army re: JLENS FOIA (May 6, 2014) EPIC: EPIC v. Army - Surveillance Blimps EPIC: Domestic Surveillance ======================================================================== [2] EPIC, Experts Support Privacy for Telephone Data in NSA Court Case ======================================================================== EPIC, joined by 33 affiliated technical experts and legal scholars, has filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of a challenge to the NSA's telephone records collection program. The case, Smith v. Obama, will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sometime in Fall 2014. Earlier this year, a lower court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect telephone call record information. The court's decision was based on a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland. EPIC's brief argues how the telephone network of the 1970s, when Smith v. Maryland was decided, is entirely unlike modern-day communications systems. The EPIC brief details how modern communication technologies create a constant stream of detailed information about our lives, raising privacy risks. "Changes in technology and the Supreme Court's recent decision in Riley v. California favor a new legal rule that recognizes the privacy interest inherent in modern communications records," EPIC wrote. The EPIC brief further explains how US consumers are dependent on cell phones for a wide range of personal and business activities; that a great deal of personal information can be stored on cell phones; and that mobile applications can provide access to sensitive information stored on remote servers. Cell phones can also serve as an authenticator for identity in mobile banking or even in gaining access to one's car or home. According to the brief, "a mobile phone acts as a master key that can grant access to, and prove a connection with, all of the user's various online and offline identities. The phone provides a portal to personal data stored on the cloud. Like a password, control over the phone is control over the data." EPIC routinely participates as a friend of the court in cases raising novel privacy and civil liberties issues. Most recently, EPIC submitted a brief in Riley v. California, a case in which the US Supreme Court considered whether a warrant was required to search the data on an arrested individual's mobile phone. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a warrantless search of a mobile phone violates the Fourth Amendment. EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Smith v. Obama (Sep. 9, 2014) US District Court, Idaho: Decision in Smith v. Obama: (Jun. 6, 2014) EPIC: Smith v. Obama EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Riley v. CA (Mar. 10, 2014) EPIC: Amicus Curiae Briefs ========================================================================= [3] EPIC (Finally) Obtains Memos on Warrantless Wiretapping Program ========================================================================= More than eight years after filing a Freedom of Information Act request for the legal justification behind President George W. Bush's "Warrantless Wiretapping" program, EPIC has obtained a largely unredacted version of two key memos (OLC54) and (OLC85) by former US Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith. The warrantless wiretapping program was part of a National Security Agency project codenamed STELLAR WIND, a broad program of email interception, phone record collection, and data collection. EPIC requested these memos just four hours after The New York Times broke the story about the program in December 2005. The Times reported, "after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying." EPIC requested "an audit of NSA domestic surveillance activities; guidance or a 'checklist' to help decide whether probable cause exists to monitor an individual's communications; communications concerning the use of information obtained through NSA domestic surveillance as the basis for DOJ surveillance applications to the FISC; and legal memoranda, opinions or statements concerning increased domestic surveillance." When the agency failed to release the documents, EPIC filed a lawsuit. The ACLU and the National Security Archive later joined the case. These two Office of Legal Counsel memos offer the fullest justification of the warrantless wiretapping program available to date, arguing that the President has inherent constitutional power to monitor Americans' communications without a warrant in a time of war. The memos reveal that the OLC distinguished between the contents of Internet communications and their "metadata," and interpreted metadata as falling outside the scope of Fourth Amendment protections. This distinction was the key to the OLC's determination that it could engage in warrantless wiretapping without Congressional approval or court oversight. However, some portions of the legal analysis, including possible contrary authority, are still being redacted or otherwise withheld. EPIC: OLC54 Memo (May 6, 2004) EPIC: OLC85 Memo (Jul. 16, 2004) The New York Times: "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts" (Dec. 16, 2005) EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ - Complaint (2006) EPIC: EPIC v. DOJ - Warrantless Wiretapping Program ======================================================================== [4] FCC Fines Verizon $7.4 Million for Violating Consumer Privacy ========================================================================= Verizon will pay the Federal Communications Commission $7.4 million to settle claims that the company violated the privacy rights of nearly two million customers. The FCC found that Verizon failed to inform customers of their privacy rights, including how to prevent their personal information from being used for marketing purposes. Specifically, the FCC alleged that "for several years Verizon used its customers' personal information when tailoring marketing campaigns without first providing its customers with the required notice or obtaining their consent." The head of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau stated, "It is plainly unacceptable for any phone company to use its customers' personal information for thousands of marketing campaigns without even giving them the choice to opt out." The Verizon payment is the largest consumer privacy settlement in FCC history. In addition to the payment, Verizon is also required to "improve how it protects the privacy rights of its customers. For example, Verizon will now include opt-out notices on every bill, not just the first bill, and it will put systems in place to monitor and test its billing systems and opt-out notice process to ensure that customers are receiving proper notices of their privacy rights." In 2013, EPIC urged the FCC to investigate Verizon's disclosure of customer record information to the NSA. EPIC alerted the FCC that Verizon was not only violating the privacy rights of its customers, but also was in violation of the Telecommunications Act. EPIC explained to the agency that "Consumers are completely dependent on Verizon for the protection of their personal phone records," because "electronic surveillance routinely occurs without any noticeable disturbance to the target or to innocent bystanders whose personal communications are intercepted. Thus, millions of consumers had no way of knowing that their personal information had been illegally provided to the NSA by Verizon." EPIC previously supported the FCC consumer privacy authority in a case heard by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. FCC: Text of Adopting Order Against Verizon (Sep. 3, 2014) FCC: Press Release on Verizon Settlement (Sep. 3, 2014) EPIC: Letter to FCC re: Verizon (Jun. 11, 2013) EPIC: Customer Proprietary Network Information EPIC: Nat'l Cable and Telecomm. Ass'n v. FCC c EPIC: In re EPIC ========================================================================= [5] EPIC Seeks Electronic Voting Security Report ========================================================================= EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain test reports about the functionality and security of an online voting program promoted by the Department of Defense. The California Secretary of State, members of Congress, and voting rights advocates have tried to obtain documents about the Federal Voting Assistance Program's voting systems for American service members living abroad, but the DOD has kept them secret even after promising public disclosure in 2012. Computer scientists have long warned about the risks of electronic voting systems. "It is absolutely critical for the documents sought in this matter be disclosed prior to further deployment of e-voting systems in the United States," EPIC's complaint states. EPIC's initial FOIA request in July 2014 asked for documents on: "1.) 'FVAP Voting System Testing Laboratory Functionality and Security Testing' 2.) 'VSTL Functionality and Security Testing' 3.) 'Penetration Testing of Simulated Election' 4.) All other documents regarding system functionality and testing of online ballots and internet voting systems." Two weeks later, the DOD replied, stating that there was no need for EPIC's requested 20-day expedited processing request, putting EPIC's FOIA in the queue behind "1554 open requests." EPIC's lawsuit now contends that there exists an "urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, and that "[f]air voting is a core democratic principle and right. These test results will indicate to the public whether or not government administered systems are secure and produce accurate, fair election results." FVAP had previously promised the release of these documents, announcing during a 2012 Congressional hearing that the information would be available by the end of that calendar year. EPIC: FOIA Complaint to DOD re: E-Voting (Sep. 11, 2014) EPIC: Initial FOIA Request to DoD re: E-Voting (Jul. 17, 2014) EPIC: DOD Response to Initial FOIA Request (Jul. 31, 2014) Defense Dept.: Federal Voting Assistance Program GPO: Congressional Hearing on Voting Assistance Program (Sep. 13, 2012) Politico: "DoD won't release e-voting penetration tests" (Jun. 16, 2014) EPIC: Voting Privacy EPIC: Open Government ======================================================================== [6] News in Brief ======================================================================== FTC Orders Google to Refund Parents $19M for Kids' Unauthorized Charges The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google over allegations that the company unfairly charged parents millions of dollars for their children's in-app purchases. The settlement mandates that Google provide full refunds for unauthorized purchases. The FTC agreement will be subject to public comment, due October 6, 2014. Already in 2014 the Commission has settled charges with Apple and sued Amazon for similarly charging parents for their children's unauthorized in-app purchases. Also in 2014, EPIC urged the FTC to require companies subject to privacy consent orders to adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. FTC: Press Release on Google Settlement (Sep. 4, 2014) FTC: Press Release on Apple Settlement (Jan. 15, 2014) FTC: Press Release on Amazon Lawsuit (Jul. 10, 2014) EPIC: Comments to FTC on Safe Harbor (Feb. 20, 2014) EPIC: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights EPIC: Search Engine Privacy EPIC: Federal Trade Commission Education New York Urges Parents to Protect Student Privacy Education New York, a leading student privacy rights organization, is urging students and parents to opt-out of the use of educational records for marketing purposes. This data typically includes name, address, telephone number, birth date, and other personal information found in student records. Education New York's founder Sheila Kaplan announced, "I'm thrilled that with greater awareness of the issues, more parents have been joining the fight for students' privacy rights." EPIC has long supported stronger privacy protections for student records. In 2012, EPIC sued the Education Department over changes to the student privacy law. Earlier in 2014, EPIC hosted a panel in Washington, DC with Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), "Failing Grade: Education Records and Student Privacy." Education New York Education New York: Opt-Out - Protect Children Education New York: Opt-Out - Protect Children (Video) Education NY: Opt-Out - Protect Children (Press Release) (Aug. 2014) EPIC: "Education Records and Student Privacy" (Jan. 14, 2014) EPIC: EPIC v. US Department of Education EPIC: Student Privacy Home Depot Data Breach Exposes Millions of Credit Card Records A data breach at Home Depot has exposed millions of consumers' credit card records, according to an announcement from Home Depot's corporate center. A September 8, 2014 press release reads, " The Home Depot . . . today confirmed that its payment data systems have been breached, which could potentially impact customers using payment cards at its U.S. and Canadian stores." In the last year, 70 million Target customers, 33 million Adobe users, 4.6 million Snapchat users, and potentially all 148 million eBay users had their personal information exposed by database breaches. In May 2014, the President's science advisors surprisingly found little risk in companies' massive collection of personal data. Conversely, a recent FTC report on data brokers warned, "Collecting and storing large amounts of data not only increases the risk of a data breach or other unauthorized access but also increases the potential harm that could be caused." EPIC has urged the White House to enact the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights and to promote Privacy Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of personally identifiable information. Home Depot: Press Release on Data Breach (Sept. 8, 2014) Krebs on Security: Post on Target Breach EPIC: "Snapchat Data Breach Exposes 4.6 Million Usernames" (Jan. 2, 2014) Reuters: "EBay Says Client Information Stolen in Hacking Attack" (May 22, 2014) information-stolen-in-h?videoId=313044013&videoChannel=2603 The White House: Report on "Big Data" and Privacy (May 2014) FTC: Report on Data Brokers (May 2014) EPIC: Comments to White House on Big Data and Privacy (Apr. 4, 2014) EPIC: Big Data and the Future of Privacy EPIC: Identity Theft Pew Survey: Online Users Self-Censor Talk of Government Surveillance According to the recent Pew Internet Research Report, "Social Media and the 'Spiral of Silence,'" most social media users are afraid to talk about government surveillance on Facebook, Twitter, and other social platforms. Users were more willing to share their views on government surveillance if they thought others shared the same view. Those who thought they held minority views were more likely to self- censor - an effect known as the "spiral of silence." In 2012, EPIC obtained FOIA documents revealing that the Department of Homeland Security monitored social media for political dissent. A subsequent Congressional hearing led DHS to cancel the program. Pew Internet: "Social Media and the 'Spiral of Silence'" (Aug. 2014) EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Social Media Monitoring) EPIC: Statement on Social Media Surveillance (Feb. 16, 2012) EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy FTC To Explore "Big Data" and Discrimination The Federal Trade Commission is hosting a September 15 workshop called "Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion?". The FTC will explore the effects of "big data" analytics on low-income and other underserved communities. Several members of the EPIC Advisory Board will be participating. Earlier in 2014, the FTC published a report on data brokers, which warned, "collecting and storing large amounts of data not only increases the risk of a data breach or other unauthorized access but also increases the potential harm that could be caused." The White House also convened a task force and published a report on "big data" in 2014. At EPIC's urging, the White House included public participation in the review process. EPIC submitted extensive comments, warning of the enormous risk to Americans of current "big data" practices but also made clear that problems are not new, citing the Privacy Act of 1974. In 2009, EPIC testified in support of new legislation to regulate the data broker industry. FTC: Press Release on Big Data Workshop (Apr. 11, 2014) EPIC: EPIC Advisory Board FTC: Report on Data Brokers (May 2014) The White House: Report on "Big Data" and Privacy (May 2014) EPIC: Comments to White House on Big Data and Privacy (Apr. 4, 2014) EPIC: Big Data and the Future of Privacy EPIC: Privacy Act of 1974 EPIC: Congressional Testimony on Data Brokers (May 5, 2009) EPIC: FTC ======================================================================== [7] EPIC in the News ======================================================================== "Missouri lawmakers push electronic privacy, again." Associated Press, Sept. 13, 2014. electronic-privacy-again-5753215.php "Yahoo's NSA challenge documents shed light on secret process" USA Today, Sept. 12, 2014. documents-reveal-secretive-process/15525591/ "U.S. threatened hefty fines to make Yahoo hand over user data." Reuters, Sept. 11, 2014. idUSL1N0RC33K20140912 "With Apple Pay and Smartwatch, a Privacy Challenge." The New York Times, Sept. 10, 2014. products-a-privacy-challenge.html "Reading Jack Goldsmith's STELLARWIND Memo (Part I)." Just Security, Sept. 10, 2014. memo/ "As Apple Moves into Health Apps, What Happens to Privacy?" The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2014. apps-what-happens-to-privacy/ "Army: No Video Planned On Md. Surveillance Blimps." CBS Baltimore, Sept. 8, 2014. md-surveillance-blimps/ "Reddit and 4chan Begin to Button Up." The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2014. button-up/ "Will Photo Scandal Cloud Apple's iPhone Reveal?" Chicago Tribune, Sept. 8, 2014. entertainmemt1vrt1201299296-20140908-story.html "Redactions in U.S. Memo Leave Doubts on Data Surveillance Program." The New York Times, Sept. 6, 2014. doubts-on-data-surveillance-program.html "Legal memos released on Bush-era justification for warrantless wiretapping." The Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2014. released-on-bush-era-justification-for-warrantless-wiretapping /2014/09/05/91b86c52-356d-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html Podcast: "Online privacy for public figures in the social media age." Constitution Daily, Sept. 5, 2014. for-public-figures-in-the-social-media-age/ "Meet the shadowy tech brokers that deliver your data to the NSA." ZDNet, Sept. 5, 2014. never-heard-of-7000032573/ "Silicon Valley firms halted spread of grisly video." ABC News, Sept. 4, 2014. halted-spread-grisly-video-25241194 "After iCloud scandal, some say Apple needs 2-step log-in process." SFGate, Sept. 4, 2014. some-say-Apple-needs-2-step-5734801.php "D.C. cops making big investment in body cameras for patrol." The Washington Times, Sept. 3, 2014. costly-body-mounted-cameras-in-p/ "Army now says it won't put cameras on surveillance aircraft in Maryland." The Washington Post, Sept. 3, 2014. armys-eyes-in-the-sky-built-to-spot-people-from-5-kilometers-away/ For More EPIC in the News: ======================================================================== [8] EPIC Book Review: 'Hate Crimes in Cyberspace' ======================================================================== "Hate Crimes in Cyberspace," Danielle Keats Citron In "Hate Crimes in Cyberspace," Professor Danielle Keats Citron dissects the phenomenon of online hate crimes and proposes action that legislators, schools, law enforcement, websites, and individuals can and should take to combat the increasingly endemic and destructive issue. The book begins with a bang. Citron introduces three victims of online hate crimes: a tech blogger; a law student who was attacked on a message board; and a victim of so called "revenge porn." All three victims are women, which Citron says is quite common. In fact, Citron contends, 60% - 70% of cyber-stalking victims are women, according to reports from the US National Violence Against Women Survey and the National Center for Victims of Crimes. This disproportionate effect on women, as well as ethnic minorities and members of the LGBT community, is central to Citron's argument that combating hate crimes in cyberspace is the next civil rights movement. Citron uses these three women's stories, often graphically, to illustrate why cyber hate crimes are particularly problematic not only for individuals but also for society as a whole. She also provides concrete solutions. Citron maps ways for lawmakers, law enforcement, harassment victims, parents, schools, and websites to combat online hatred and violence. Working together, she contends, is the only way to stop the abuse and send a clear message to attackers that online harassment is just as real and unacceptable as it is in person. One of the book's most important chapters, "Legal Reform for Site Operators and Employers," is an in-depth look at how the legal community can help solve the problem of online hate crimes, focusing particularly on the numerous options and hurdles in this evolving area of law. Perhaps most importantly for the legal community, Citron provides an example of model legislation that uses the broad, yet specific language necessary to provide remedies to victims of these offenses. This model statute acts as a call to state legislatures to pass similar laws, and the chapter acts as a roadmap of the many perils of drafting such a statute. Citron also discusses the difficulties of combatting online hate crime while simultaneously protecting free speech: "People often bristle at the prospect of a regulatory response to cyber harassment," she says; even after 20 years, the Internet is still perceived as a "Wild West" where anything goes, including hate speech. However, Citron contends that, since physical world hate speech is not protected under First Amendment free speech principles, why would Internet speech be given any more protection than something said offline? Citron clearly dissects free speech issues and demonstrates, point-by-point, how speech will still be protected online. Finally, Citron calls for a "cyber civil liberties agenda," similar to past civil rights movements combating workplace sexual harassment and domestic violence. "Destructive behavior cannot be the answer to destructive behavior unless we want a Hobbesian nightmare for our society," Citron writes. "Hate Crimes in Cyberspace" serves as a field guide on how to stop cyber harassment through positive actions. -- Sara R. Bennett =================================== [8] EPIC Book Store =================================== "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 ======================================================================= OECD Forum of the Knowledge Economy. Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Tokyo: Oct. 2, 2014. For More Information: International Working Group on Data Protection and Telecommunications. Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Berlin: Oct. 14-15, 2014. For More Information: OECD Experts on International Security Guidelines. Speaker: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. Paris: Oct. 27, 2014. For More Information: review.htm. ======================================================================= Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter ======================================================================= Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter: 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 http://www.epic.orgor write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). ======================================================================= Support 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. ======================================================================= 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 21.17------------------------

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback