EPIC Alert 21.23
E P I C A l e r t
Volume 21.23 December 10, 2014
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
Table of Contents
 EPIC Asks New Mexico Supreme Court to Limit Aerial Surveillance
 EU Officials: 'Right to be Forgotten' Applies Worldwide
 EPIC Pursues FOIA Suit on Vast Phone Record Database 'Hemisphere'
 EPIC Uncovers DOD Student Data Collection Procedures
California Court Strikes Down DNA Collection Law
 News in Brief
 EPIC in the News
 EPIC Book Review: "@War"
Conferences and Events
TAKE ACTION: Rock the Freedom of Information Act with FOIA.ROCKS!
VISIT EPIC's New FOIA Domain: http://foia.rocks
TWEET in Support of FOIA: #FOIAat40
LEARN about EPIC's FOIA Work: https://epic.org/foia/
SUPPORT EPIC: https://epic.org/support/
 EPIC Asks New Mexico Supreme Court to Limit Aerial
EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief
in State v. Davis, a New
Mexico Supreme Court case considering the warrantless search of private
property. In the case, an Army
National Guard helicopter spotted
"vegetation" in Davis' backyard and greenhouse, then arrested him for
possession of and growing
EPIC's brief argues that "aerial surveillance technology threatens
widely shared privacy and property interests" and
surveillance in the airspace above a suspect's property is a search
under the Fourth Amendment, is trespassory,
and violates both property
interests and an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. "[A]s
the expense and limitations of
aerial surveillance from helicopters and
aircraft are eliminated," EPIC wrote, "it will be necessary to establish
to protect against constant monitoring."
In February 2012, EPIC led a coalition of more than 100 members of the
public and consumer
rights, human rights, and civil liberties
organizations in petitioning the FAA to conduct a public rulemaking on
use of drones. EPIC's petitioned stated that "drones
present a unique threat to privacy. Drones are designed to undertake
persistent surveillance to a degree that former methods of
aerial surveillance were unable to achieve."
The FAA subsequently published
a notice of proposed privacy policies to
govern the operation of drones in the six designated test sites. EPIC
recommending test site operators comply with the
Fair Information Practices, disclose data collection and minimization
and subject themselves to independent audits. This month the
FAA directly responded to EPIC's petition, declining to perform a
separate rulemaking on the privacy and civil liberties implications of
domestic drone use.
EPIC also testified in front of the
US House Subcommittee on Oversight,
Investigations, and Management in July 2012, stating, "there are
substantial legal and constitutional
issues involved in the deployment
of aerial drones by federal agencies that need to be addressed."
EPIC: "Friend of the Court"
Brief in State v. Davis (Dec. 8, 2014)
EPIC: State v. Davis
EPIC: Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA re: Drones (Feb. 24, 2012)
FAA: Response to EPIC et al. Petition (Nov. 26, 2014)
EPIC: Comments to FAA re: Test Site Program (Apr. 23, 2013)
EPIC: Congressional Testimony re: Drones (Mar. 20, 2013)
 EU Officials: 'Right to be Forgotten' Applies Worldwide
Privacy regulators in the European Union have issued guidelines
for the recent "Right to be Forgotten" ruling to apply worldwide. The
guidelines, developed by the EU's Article 29 Working
Party - data
protection officials from each EU member state, the European Data
Protection Supervisor, and the European Commission
- reflect the EU's
interpretation of the ruling and criteria used to evaluate "de-listing"
In the case Google Spain
v. Gonzalez, decided in May 2014, the European
Union Court of Justice ruled that an EU citizen may ask search engines
links to him or herself in search results. In implementing
the decision, however, Google chose to remove the links for only EU
domains, leaving the de-listed data accessible to most users
(i.e., .com domains). The new report makes clear that the ruling should
apply across all domains. "Limiting de-listing to EU domains on the
grounds that users tend to access search engines via their
domains cannot be considered a sufficient means to satisfactorily
guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the
Working Party explained.
EPIC firmly supports the Working Party's guidelines on the "right to be
forgotten." In a
recent opinion piece in USA News and World Report,
EPIC President Marc Rotenberg responded to the Working Party's critics,
"Google's position on this issue makes little sense. The
company could not reasonably claim to protect a U.S. citizen's credit
card details by removing links to the private information from only the
google.us domain. Similarly, Google does not address the
problem elsewhere by only removing links from search provided for only
Art. 29 Working Party: Guidelines
on Google v. Gonzalez (Nov. 26, 2014)
ECJ: Decision in Google Spain v. Gonzalez (May 13, 2014)
US News & World Report: "The Right to Privacy is Global," by EPIC
President Marc Rotenberg (Dec. 5, 2014)
EPIC: Right to Be Forgotten
EPIC: International Privacy Law
 EPIC Pursues FOIA Suit on Vast Phone Record Database
EPIC has filed a motion for summary judgment
in a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration,
citing the agency's failure to produce documents about"Hemisphere," a
AT&T call records database available to government agents.
EPIC learned of the database in 2013 when The New York Times obtained
and published a PowerPoint presentation of DEA training slides, which
revealed only limited information about the collection program's
and the agencies and companies involved.
According to the slides, the Hemisphere program allows law enforcement
to access billions of detailed phone records that pass through
AT&T switches. Thus, the government may examine call "metadata" of
AT&T customers and non-customers whose calls are routed through an AT&T
switch. Hemisphere records date back to 1987, and,
according to the
slides, law enforcement personnel may search the Hemisphere database
during routine criminal investigations unrelated
to national security.
EPIC's initial FOIA request to the DEA asked for the legal basis and
privacy impact of the Hemisphere program;
any other training modules;
any legal or policy memos addressing the rationale for tethering the
program to judicial authority;
and any communications to Congress about
the program, particularly those that justify Hemisphere's privacy
impact. When the DEA
failed to issue a determination - that is, grant
or deny EPIC's request - EPIC filed the lawsuit to compel the agency to
with the FOIA.
As a result of the lawsuit, the DEA produced several hundred pages of
records, almost all of which were entirely
redacted, then failed to
provide EPIC with detailed descriptions of the redacted records, as
required by law. EPIC's motion for
summary judgment argues that the
agency has failed to comply with the law.
EPIC challenged the NSA's bulk collection of telephone
records in a
2013 petition to the US Supreme Court, supported by legal scholars and
former members of the Church Committee. EPIC's
petition asked the Court
to halt the disclosure of the telephone records of millions of
Americans, arguing that the judicial authority
claimed by the NSA did
not actually have the power to compel Verizon to turn over all domestic
telephone "metadata." EPIC's petition
argued that an order halting the
program was "warranted because the [foreign intelligence court]
exceeded its statutory jurisdiction
when it ordered production of
millions of domestic telephone records that cannot plausibly be
relevant to an authorized investigation."
EPIC: Motion in EPIC v. DEA - Hemisphere (Dec. 1, 2014)
EPIC: Complaint in EPIC v. DEA - Hemisphere (Feb. 26, 2014)
EPIC: Initial FOIA Request to DEA re: Hemisphere (Nov. 15, 2013)
ONDCP: Hemisphere Training PowerPoint Slides (2013)
EPIC: EPIC v. DEA - Hemisphere
EPIC: In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance
EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court (Jul. 8, 2013)
EPIC: FOIA Cases
 EPIC Uncovers DOD Student Data Collection Procedures
The Department of Defense has provided EPIC with documents
"Joint Advertising and Market Research Studies" (JAMRS) Recruiting
Database. DOD obtains information for the database from
offering military aptitude tests; state DMVs; and commercial data
brokers. The database includes sensitive student
home address and grade point average. EPIC sought these documents via
the Freedom of Information Act in 2009 because they shed light on how
DOD collects, retains, uses, and safeguards student information within
of the DOD documents include a interim report on JAMRS privacy and
data security practices; blank sample student information sheets
test forms; detailed memoranda on safeguarding Personally Identifiable
Information; and guidelines for testing. According to
provided to EPIC, the Defense Department uses the JAMRS database to
"compile, process, and distributed files regarding
aged youth to the Services' Recruiting Commands to assist them in their
direct marketing recruiting efforts."
The documents also reveal that
parents demanded that DOD remove their children's records from the
system, some repeatedly.
2005, EPIC, joined by more than 100 organizations, urged then-
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to end the database because it
collected unnecessary information, did not permit individuals to opt-
out, and was housed at a private-sector direct marketing company.
agency now permits individuals to opt-out.
Prior to the letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, EPIC and eight privacy and
groups wrote comments to the Defense Department, urging the
agency not to create the database. EPIC's comments stated, "The DOD
faces serious challenges in staffing the military. However, these
challenges should be overcome through traditional advertising
The foray of government into direct-marketing style recruitment
violates the norms of the Privacy Act and subjects Americans
to risk of
identity theft. The DOD should withdraw its plan to create the Joint
EPIC: FOIA Documents
Interim Report on JAMRS Database (2009)
DOD JAMRS Privacy Act SORN (Jan. 2007)
Armed Forces Aptitude Battery Privacy Act Statement (undated)
Military Testing Program Procedures and Guidelines (Dec. 2008)
ASVAB Career Exploration Program Exam Reservation Form (undated)
AK Local Educational Agency Military Testing (1999)
DOD Memorandum on Safeguarding PII (2006)
DOD Memorandum on Safeguarding Against Security Breaches (2008)
Parental Opt-outs of JAMRS Database (2007)
DOD: Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies Recruiting Database
EPIC: JAMRS FOIA Request (Jul. 2, 2009)
EPIC: Navy JAMRS FOIA Response (Nov. 14, 2014)
Privacy Coalition: DOD Database Campaign Coalition Letter (2005)
EPIC: DOD Recruiting Database
EPIC: Student Privacy
 California Court Strikes Down DNA Collection Law
A California state appeals court has struck down a state
collection of DNA from all individuals arrested on suspicion of
committing a felony. California's First District
Court of Appeals ruled
that the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act of
1998, or DNA Act, intrudes on an
arrestee's expectation of privacy, and
is an unreasonable search and seizure prohibited by the state's
was remanded from the California Supreme Court, which asked
the appeals court to reconsider it following the US Supreme Court's
ruling in Maryland v. King. The appeals court, however, concluded that
Maryland v. King was not applicable and that the California
Constitution controlled the decision. California's DNA Act, unlike
Maryland's law, requires the police to collect DNA samples immediately
arrest, even before arrestees are charged, much less convicted,
of any crime. Arrestees that have not been charged with a crime
expectation of privacy "closer to the ordinary citizen end of the
continuum . . . ," the court said, also noting that "in
2012 . . . 62
percent of felony arrestees who were not ultimately convicted - almost
20 percent of total felony arrestees - were
never even charged with a
According to the appeals court, the absence of automatic expungement
procedures for DNA samples
"increases the privacy intrusion because DNA
profiles and samples are likely to remain available to the government
for some period
of time after the justification for their collection has
disappeared, potentially indefinitely." Thus, the court concluded,
mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can
never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment. . .' is
the more obvious under the California Constitution, which expressly
recognizes a right to privacy, and even more so in the context of a
search of such deeply personal and private
information as is contained
in a DNA sample."
EPIC is a strong supporter of genetic privacy and has filed "friend of
briefs in a number of DNA cases. In 2013 EPIC submitted a
brief to the US Supreme Court in Maryland v. King, arguing that the
collection of DNA presents a risk to individual privacy.
CA State Appeals Court: Opinion in State DNA Law Case (Dec. 3, 2014)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Maryland v. King (Feb. 1, 2013)
EPIC: Maryland v. King
EPIC: Maryland v. Raines
EPIC: Kohler v Englade
EPIC: US v. Kincade
EPIC: Herring v. US
EPIC: Genetic Privacy
 News in Brief
graphics, Facebook continues
to collect and disclose enormous amounts
of user data without meaningful consent and contrary to a 2011
settlement with the FTC.
Specifically, Facebook's use of location data
has expanded dramatically. "We collect information from or about the
or other devices where you install or access our
Services," states Facebook, particularly "device locations, including
geographic locations, such as through GPS, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi
signals." Facebook's 20-year consent decree with the Federal Trade
Commission is a consequence of a complaint brought by EPIC and a
coalition of consumer privacy organizations when the company changed
user privacy settings. More recently, consumer organizations in the US
and Europe have objected to Facebook's decision to track
activities and to profile offline purchases. Privacy groups have also
objected to Facebook's manipulation of user news
FTC: Facebook Consent Order (Nov. 29, 2014)
EPIC: Complaint to FTC in In re Facebook (Dec. 17, 2009)
TACD: Letter to FTC re: Facebook (Jul. 29, 2014)
EPIC: Complaint to FTC re: Facebook Psychological Study (Jul. 3, 2014)
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
EPIC: In re Facebook
UN Urges All Countries to Protect Digital Privacy
The United Nations has adopted a resolution on "The Right to Privacy in
Digital Age" that reaffirms the rights and freedoms embodied in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN resolution highlights
risks of mass surveillance and warns that so- called "metadata" "can
reveal personal information and can give an insight into
behavior, social relationships, private preferences and identity."
Earlier in 2014, in a joint submission to the
United Nations, EPIC,
NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, and other public interest
organizations urged the UN Human Rights Council
to review US
surveillance programs. The letter stated that US surveillance
activities "violate the rights to privacy, freedom of
the freedom of peaceful assembly and association . . ." guaranteed by
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
UN: Resolution: "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age" (Nov. 19, 2014)
EPIC et al.: Coalition Letter to UN (Sep. 18, 2014)
EPIC: Council of Europe Privacy Convention
The Public Voice: The Madrid Privacy Declaration (Nov. 3, 2009)
British Court Upholds Mass Surveillance by UK Spy Agency
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which reviews complaints of unlawful
surveillance by Britain's intelligence agencies, has ruled that mass
collection of online communications is legal. The complaint
by several privacy rights groups in the UK and focused on GCHQ's
electronic surveillance program, TEMPORA, and information
the UK spy
agency obtained through the NSA's PRISM and Upstream programs. The
privacy rights groups plan to appeal the decision
to the European Court
of Human Rights. EPIC challenged the NSA's mass surveillance of US
phone records in a 2013 petition to the
US Supreme Court. EPIC's
petition argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
exceeded its authority when it ordered
Verizon to turn over all
customer records to the NSA, and was supported by legal scholars and
former members of the Church Committee.
UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal
IPT-UK: Ruling in Liberty v. GCHQ (Dec. 5, 2014)
EPIC: Petition to US Supreme Court (Jul. 8, 2013)
EPIC: In re EPIC- NSA Telephone Records Surveillance
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Reform
Congress Considers Bill to Strengthen Privacy Act
Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) has introduced legislation
update the federal Privacy Act. The "Safeguarding Individual Privacy
Against Government Invasion Act of 2014 (HR 5772)" would
individuals for "non-pecuniary" harms after Privacy Act violations.
The proposal is a response to FAA v. Cooper, a
2012 US Supreme Court
decision holding that the Privacy Act does not cover mental and
emotional damages. EPIC filed a "friend of
the court" brief in that
case, explaining that privacy laws routinely provide recovery for
mental and emotional harm; that such
damages are the most common
consequence of privacy violations; and that civil remedies are
necessary to ensure Privacy Act enforcement.
Following the decision in
FAA v. Cooper, EPIC set out proposals to strengthen the Privacy Act.
EPIC also recently recommended that
the President's Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board prioritize Privacy Act enforcement.
US Congress: Text of HR 5772
(Dec. 1, 2014)
US Supreme Court: Decision in FAA v. Cooper (Mar. 28, 2012)
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in FAA v. Cooper (Oct. 4, 2011)
EPIC: Supplemental Letter on Privacy Act Bill (May 14, 2012)
EPIC: Letter on Privacy Act Modernization Bill (Mar. 27, 2012)
EPIC: Letter to PCLOB on "Defining Privacy" (Nov. 11, 2014)
EPIC: FAA v. Cooper
EPIC: Doe v. Chao
EPIC: The Privacy Act of 1974
FAA Grounds Drone Privacy Safeguards
The Federal Aviation Administration has denied a 2012 EPIC-led petition
to initiate a public
rulemaking addressing privacy and civil liberties
issues posed by domestic drones. In a letter to EPIC, the agency stated
not required to solicit public comments on the privacy
implications of drones because privacy was "not an immediate safety
In March 2012, EPIC, joined by over 100 other organizations,
experts, and members of the public, petitioned the FAA to "conduct
notice and comment rulemaking on the impact of privacy and civil
liberties related to the use of drones in the United States."
agency subsequently published a notice with proposed privacy
requirements for drone operators at FAA-designated drone test
and EPIC submitted comments in response to the notice, urging the
agency to mandate minimum privacy standards for drone
considering numerous public comments on the privacy impact of aerial
drones, the FAA proposed that test-site operators
policies but did not require any specific baseline privacy standards.
EPIC: Letter from FAA Denying Petition
(Nov. 26, 2014)
EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA re: Drone Privacy (Feb. 24, 2012)
EPIC: Comments to FAA re: Drone Privacy Rulemaking (Apr. 23, 2013)
FAA: Rulemaking on Drone Privacy (Nov. 14, 2013)
EPIC: Domestic Drones
EPIC: Spotlight on Surveillance: Drones - Eyes in the Sky
Pew Survey: Americans Wrongly Believe Privacy Policies Protect Privacy
According to a new Pew Survey, over 50% of
US Internet users believe
privacy policies protect their personal information. The survey posed
the True/False statement, "When
ensures that the company keeps confidential all the information it
collects on users." Fifty-two
percent of users incorrectly answered,
"True." The question was based on a similar 2003 survey, which found
that 57% of users believed
privacy policies protected their
information. In EPIC's 1999 survey on online privacy, "Surfer Beware
III: Personal Privacy and
the Internet", EPIC "found that the privacy
policies available at many websites are typically confusing,
incomplete, and inconsistent."
The original EPIC survey "Surfer Beware:
Personal Privacy and the Internet" (1997) was the first ever undertaken
of Internet privacy
practices. EPIC wrote at the time, "it is matter of
basic fairness to inform web users when personal information is being
and how it will be used."
Pew Internet: Survey on Internet Privacy Policies (Nov. 25, 2014)
UC Berkeley: Paper on Internet Users and Privacy Policies (Oct. 2007)
EPIC: "Surfer Beware III" (Dec. 1999)
EPIC: "Surfer Beware: Personal Privacy and the Internet" (Jun. 1997)
EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy
 EPIC in the News
"3 Questions to Ask Before Putting Cameras on Cops." Yahoo Tech, Dec.
"Privacy argument proves tough sell in Coeur d'Alene woman's NSA case."
The Spokesman-Review (ID), Dec. 9, 2014.
"Congress finds sorting Fast and Furious records 'like pieces of a
puzzle'." Cronkite News (AZ), Dec. 7, 2014.
"NSA Hacking of Cell Phone Networks." Lawfare, Dec. 8, 2014.
"The 5 Worst Big Data Privacy Risks (and How to Guard Against Them)."
CIO, Dec. 8, 2014.
"Usage of police surveillance data concerns privacy groups." Peoria
Star-Journal, Dec. 7, 2014.
US News & World Report: "The Right to Privacy is Global," by EPIC
President Marc Rotenberg (Dec. 5, 2014)
"Google to revamp its products with 12-and-younger focus." USA Today,
Dec. 3, 2014.
"FAA Grounds Drone Privacy Safeguards." Law360, Dec. 2, 2014.
"Why the FAA Isn't Worried About Drones Invading Your Privacy Right
Now." Gizmodo, Dec. 2, 2014.
"The biggest privacy outrages in 2014." Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 2014.
"Car Talk: Sharp Turns Ahead." The National Law Journal, Dec. 1, 2014.
"How Social Media Data in Behavior Studies Leads to Bad Science." Utah
People's Post, Nov. 28, 2014.
"Data can tell you want to quit or that you're not right for the job."
The Kansas City Star, Nov. 28, 2014.
"Scientists Warn About Bias In The Facebook And Twitter Data Used In
Millions Of Studies." Forbes, Nov. 27, 2014.
"EU May Ask Google to Extend 'Right to Be Forgotten' Beyond Europe."
EWeek, Nov. 26, 2014.
"Twitter's Data Grab: Company Wants To Know What Other Apps Users
Install." MediaPost, Nov. 26, 2014.
For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html
 EPIC Book Review: '@War'
"@War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex," Shane Harris
Journalist Shane Harris has authored an intriguing account of the rise
of what he has dubbed the "military-Internet complex." "@War"
chronicles the US government's ever-intensifying focus on cyberspace as
the "fifth domain" of warfare - adding it to land, air,
sea, and space.
General Keith Alexander and Vice Admiral Mike McConnell play central
roles in pushing for a greater focus on cyber
operations and greater
power for the NSA to perform them.
Harris begins Part I of the book explaining how the war in Iraq was
partly the first cyber war - and one led, however covertly, by the NSA.
During the "surge" in Iraq, the US government used malicious
viruses and other hacking techniques to track, manipulate, and subvert
the insurgents. To accomplish this, Harris explains,
"the NSA would
have to infect not just insurgents' phones and computers with malware
but potentially many other innocent Iraqis'
devices, too." The account
of cyber operations in Iraq acts as the pivot point in the story of the
government's development of
a cyber army to not only fight wars but
also dominate cyberspace to collect intelligence.
Part II covers the private sector's increasing
focus of on cybersecurity
and the growing cooperation between the government and private industry.
The author details this rise
through accounts of high-level government
meetings, sophisticated hacks of US companies, and government and
private industry cyber
operations. Harris recounts Vice Admiral
McConnell selling President George W. Bush on cyberwar in Iraq, the
turf war over domestic
cyber defense between the NSA and the Department
of Homeland Security, and the sophisticated hack on Google networks
that led the
company to publicly identify China as the perpetrator. The
end result is a military-Internet complex rivaling the "military-
complex" President Dwight Eisenhower predicted more than
half a century ago.
@War is a well-written, well-researched look into
the growth of cyber
conflict. The book lays bare the close relationship between Internet
companies and the US government. Harris
suggests the rules of
cyberspace are not set but are quickly being defined by the military-
Internet complex, which will have implications
for our privacy and our
freedom. As Harris states, "It's incumbent on everyone who touches
cyberspace - which is undeniably a collective
- to find what Eisenhower
called 'essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise
resolution of which will better shape
the future of the nation.'"
-- Jeramie D. Scott
"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall,
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
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
"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: http://www.epic.org/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:
 Upcoming Conferences and Events
Performance of "Interrogation (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and
Love the NSA)." By John Feffer, Directed by Matty Griffiths.
afterwords with EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg.
Busboys and Poets, Washington, DC. December 11, 2014. For More
"Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection." Brussels: January
21-23, 2015. For More Information: http://www.cpdpconferences.org/.
"EPIC 2015 International Champion of Freedom Award." Brussels: January
22, 2015. For More Information: http://www.cpdpconferences.org/.
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.
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
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).
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic
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.
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 21.23------------------------