From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of EPIC News
Sent: 11 March 2006 00:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EPIC Alert 13.05
=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 13.05 March 10, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_13.05.html
=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================
[1] Former DOJ Official Doubted Legal Basis For NSA Program [2] DOJ
Inspector General Reports on Possible Intelligence Violations [3] Phone
Records and Pretexting Capture Attention of Congress, States [4] Patriot Act
Renewed, Some Civil Liberties Safeguards Added [5] Congress Presses for More
Information on NSA Surveillance Program [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC
Bookstore: Glenn Reynolds's "An Army of Davids"
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================
[1] Former DOJ Official Doubted Legal Basis For NSA Program
=======================================================================
Documents obtained by EPIC this week in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit
against the Department of Justice reveal that a former top official in the
Justice Department was skeptical of the Bush Administration's legal
justification for its controversial warrantless surveillance program.
Among the released documents was a series of e-mails from former Associate
Deputy Attorney General David S. Kris. Kris -- now Chief Ethics and
Compliance Officer at Time Warner, Inc. -- provided his former colleague a
legal analysis concluding that the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Resolution likely did not authorize the surveillance program. He also said
that the DOJ's statutory arguments "had a slightly after-the-fact quality or
feeling to them."
The DOJ refused to disclose much additional information related to its
secretive warrantless surveillance program. Most of the documents released
this week are previously published justifications for the program and
transcripts of television appearances by the Attorney General.
The documents disclosed by the DOJ this week cover only a small fraction of
the material at issue in the lawsuit. In legal papers filed the night before
the Justice Department's court-imposed deadline for releasing the documents,
the agency requested a delay of four months to complete is processing of
classified information related to the program.
The case arises from the New York Times' report in December that President
Bush secretly issued an executive order in 2002 authorizing the National
Security Agency to conduct warrantless surveillance of international
telephone and Internet communications on American soil.
EPIC submitted FOIA requests to four DOJ components just hours after the
warrantless surveillance program's existence was first reported. Noting the
extraordinary public interest in the program -- and its potential illegality
-- EPIC asked the agencies to expedite the processing of its requests. The
DOJ agreed that the requests deseved priority treatment, but failed to
comply with the FOIA's usual time limit of twenty working days. The court's
February 16 order found that delay to be unreasonable, and ordered the
Justice Department to disclose all responsive documents by March 8, or to
describe the information it sought to withhold and provide legal
justifications for non-disclosure.
"President Bush has invited meaningful debate about the warrantless
surveillance program," U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy wrote. "That can
only occur if DOJ processes [EPIC's] FOIA requests in a timely fashion and
releases the information sought."
EPIC's case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union and the National Security Archive concerning many of the
same documents.
DOJ's Motion Requesting More Time to Process Classified Material (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/motion_relief.pdf
Judge Kennedy's Order (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/pi_order.pdf
More Information About EPIC's Case, EPIC v. Department of Justice:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/
=======================================================================
[2] DOJ Inspector General Reports on Possible Intelligence Violations
=======================================================================
In response to accounts of apparent intelligence violations uncovered by
EPIC last year, the Department of Justice Inspector General has examined the
FBI's procedures for reporting possible agent misconduct. The findings were
relayed in a semiannual report to Congress about civil rights or civil
liberties complaints made against Justice Department employees.
According to the Inspector General, the FBI reported more than a hundred
instances of possible intelligence misconduct to the Intelligence Oversight
Board (IOB) in the past two years. The report says a number of these matters
were "significant," including one instance in which the FBI collected the
full content of 181 phone calls instead of just billing and toll records.
The Inspector General also found that possible violations of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act accounted for nearly 70 percent of reports to
the board in 2005, up from 48 percent in 2004.
The Inspector General's examination was sparked by a series of redacted FBI
reports to the board obtained last year by EPIC through Freedom of
Information Act litigation. The apparent intelligence violations described
in that material included improper e-mail collection, eavesdropping on the
wrong person's telephone calls, investigations conducted for months without
proper reporting or oversight, an FBI agent's seizure of financial records
in violation of federal privacy law, and an unidentified intelligence
agency's unlawful physical search.
Under an executive order, inspectors general and general counsel throughout
the intelligence community must inform the Intelligence Oversight Board
about "intelligence activities that they have reason to believe may be
unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive." The
board is required to forward to the Attorney General reports of activities
that it finds likely to have violated laws, executive orders or directives.
In January, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the
Department of Justice for all reports of apparent intelligence misconduct
made to the Intelligence Oversight Board since 9/11. EPIC also requested
reports forwarded from the board to the Attorney General and documentation
of its responsive actions. The Attorney General's Office recently reported
that it has no information responsive to EPIC's request for documents.
Department of Justice Inspector General, Report to Congress on
Implementation of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0603/final.pdf
Executive Order 12863:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/eo12863.html
EPIC FOIA Note #9: Possible Patriot Act Abuses Released by FBI
http://www.epic.org/foia_notes/note9.html
EPIC FOIA Documents on Possible Intelligence Abuses (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/iob.pdf
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/iob2.pdf
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/iob3.pdf
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/iob4.pdf
=======================================================================
[3] Phone Records and Pretexting Capture Attention of Congress, States
=======================================================================
Federal and state lawmakers are focusing attention on protecting phone and
other customer records from pretexting. These new developments are a result
of a complaint and a petition EPIC filed with federal agencies detailing how
phone records are sold through "pretexting." Since filing those documents,
Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, and state attorneys general have all filed subpoenas or brought
lawsuits against pretexters.
The U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees approved legislation
establishing criminal penalties for obtaining phone records through
pretexting. In the House, the Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 4709, the
bi-partisan "Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006." The
legislation makes it a crime to acquire, purchase, or sell telephone or VoIP
records without the account holder's consent.
Violators are subject to fines and up to 20 years in jail. The Senate
Judiciary committee reported out the bi-partisan S. 2178, the "Consumer
Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006." The Senate legislation is similar
to the House version, but provides for less severe penalties.
In Illinois, the state Senate passed SB 2554. The Illinois bill differs from
other anti-fraud efforts in that it broadly prohibits all pretexting by
classifying it as an identity theft crime. Specifically, the measure
prohibits the use of impersonation or pretexting to access almost any type
of personal information held by others, or to gain access "to any record of
the actions taken, communications made or received, or other activities or
transactions" of another. The measure still needs to be approved by the
State's lower House. Governor Blagojevich has already announced his support
for the privacy bill.
In Florida, S. 1488 is moving swiftly through committees of the state's
Senate. The bill would prohibit using false statements in order to obtain
phone records of another. In addition, Florida Attorney General Crist has
brought suit against Global Information Group for pretexting phone records.
In the complaint, it is alleged that Verizon Wireless alone received over
5,100 calls from Global Information Group's telephone number.
In California, the Assembly Public Safety Committee held a hearing on SB
202, a bill that would broadly prohibit the sale or purchase of phone
records. It is sponsored by Senator Joe Simitian (D-San Mateo), author of
the state's security breach notification law. At the hearing, Assembly
members were receptive to the bill, and it received support from several
telecommunications companies. The Committee held the bill in order to digest
last-minute amendments, but is likely to advance the legislation to the
floor at its next meeting.
EPIC Illegal Access to Phone Records Page:
http://epic.org/privacy/iei/
HR 4709, the Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4709:
S. 2178, the Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02178:
Illinois Senate Bill 2554:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/il_pretext_bill.html
Florida Senate Bill 1488:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/fl_cpni_bill.html
=======================================================================
[4] Patriot Act Renewed, Some Civil Liberties Safeguards Added
=======================================================================
On March 9, Prseident Bush signed a bill renewing the Patriot Act under the
terms of a Senate-approved compromise measure. The measure makes permanent
most of the provisions of the 2001 law, which was originally slated to
expire at the end of last year. Intense debate over the Act's expansion of
search and surveillance powers delayed Congressional action, and lawmakers
twice extended the deadline for the Act's expiration in order to continue
debate.
A handful of the most controversial aspects of the law were curbed in its
renewal. The government may no longer use "National Security Letters" to
obtain library loan records. The letters, which do not require judicial
oversight, require recipients to turn over information, while preventing
them from speaking about it. However, the new legislation eliminates an
earlier provision that required recipients to notify the FBI of any attorney
they have consulted regarding receipt of the letter. The renewal also
specifies that recipients of so-called "Section 215 subpoenas," which are
issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, can challenge gag
orders attached to these subpoenas in court.
While the majority of the Patriot Act is now made permanent, two particular
provisions are left with expiration dates. One is the FBI's power to conduct
"roving wiretaps" that eavesdrop on a target's communications across
multiple phone numbers of email accounts. Another is the government's power
to seize business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Each of these provisions is now set to expire at the end of 2009.
These limited safeguards, however, are still not enough in the eyes of some
legislators. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member
Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and ten other senators have introduced a bipartisan
bill that would reinstate safeguards that had been removed from the renewal
act during debate. The safeguards include increased judicial review of
national security letters, requiring the government to show a stronger
connection to terrorism before searching personal records, reducing the
amount of time that the government can conduct a search before notifying its
target, and adding a 4-year expiration date on the power to use National
Security Letters.
EPIC's Patriot Act page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.3199:
S. 2369, Senate Bill Further Amending the Patriot Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02369:
=======================================================================
[5] Congress Presses for More Information on NSA Surveillance Program
=======================================================================
Members of Congress have continued to push for more information about the
Bush Administration's controversial warrantless surveillance program.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its second hearing on the
operation, asking legal experts to weigh in on the legality of the
surveillance program. The hearing followed Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales' defense of the program last month, which he followed up with a
letter to the committee to "clarify" his testimony. Among other things, the
letter stated that the Administration's legal rationale for the program "has
evolved over time," and emphasized that his testimony did not address "other
classified intelligence activities." Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking
Democrat on the committee, has demanded that the Attorney General clarify
his statements.
The committee's chair, Senator Arlen Specter, has also been an outspoken
critic of the Administration's failure to provide information about the
program. He has urged fellow members of Congress to press for a court ruling
on the legitimacy of the NSA's surveillance activities and impose greater
oversight over the program. This week, he also threatened to move to block
the Bush Administration's funding if Attorney General Gonzales is not more
forthcoming with details about the program.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has voted not to launch an inquiry into
the program, but has proposed legislation that would form a subcommittee to
oversee the NSA's surveillance activities. However, the legislation would
also permit the President to authorize warrantless surveillance for up to 45
days in cases where the intercepted communication involves someone suspected
of being associated with certain terrorist organizations and if at least one
party to the communication is on foreign soil.
The House Intelligence Committee has also pushed for additional briefings so
that they can consider making changes to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee
(pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/gonzalesletter.html
Press Release, "Leahy Presses Gonzales on Delayed 'Clarifications' to His
Testimony on Domestic Spying":
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200603/030106a.html
=======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
=======================================================================
Citibank Freezes Debit Cards After Major Fraud Action
An undisclosed but possibly large number of Citibank customers in Canada,
the UK, and Russia were recently left unable to use their ATM cards. Initial
inquiries by customers to the bank were met with little information, though
the company now says that an unspecified number of fraudulent withdrawals
had been detected. Other banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and
Washington Mutual, have reportedly taken similar steps. Some reports have
indicated that the breach may have originated with data stolen from
OfficeMax, though OfficeMax denies it was aware of any security breach.
EPIC's Identity Theft Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/idtheft/
Ireland Halts National ID Card Plan
Ireland will not introduce national ID cards in response to such cards in
Britain. Last year, the Minister for Justice said he reluctantly accepted
that Ireland might have to introduce identity cards when Britain went ahead
with its scheme. However, changes in the British legislation mean that the
new British ID cards will not affect Irish citizens traveling between the
two countries. After a protracted battle between national ID card advocates
and opponents, British MPs voted last month to create the cards. However,
further legislation will be needed to make carrying the cards compulsory.
EPIC's National ID and REAL ID Cards page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/
Intelligence Agencies Ordered to Halt Reclassification Program
The country's head archivist has demanded that intelligence agencies stop
reclassifying public documents held by the National Archives until an
investigation can be conducted into the practice. The New York Times
reported last month that a group of intelligence agencies has reclassified
thousands of documents since 1999, including decades-old reports from the
State Department and historical documents that researchers have photocopied
and stored in their personal files. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the
United States, urged the intelligence agencies to return as much
reclassified material as possible to the National Archives' shelves until
the agency can complete its audit of the program.
National Archives Press Release on Reclassification Hold:
http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2006/nr06-67.html
National Archives Information on Declassification:
http://www.archives.gov/about/regulations/part-1260.html
EPIC's Open Government Litigation Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/litigation/
Google Moves Search Records Out of China
Google recently announced that it was moving records of users' searches
outside of the borders of the People's Republic of China. The move is
intended to protect users from having records of their searches seized by
the Chinese government, which often enforces strict speech restrictions on
the Internet. Google and other technology companies recently came under fire
for censoring search results to accommodate Chinese governmental policy. The
removal of servers from China will not affect the Google.cn search engine's
filtered search results, but will prevent the company from having to comply
with orders to turn over information resulting in the imprisonment of
dissidents. Yahoo has been widely criticized lately for its role in the
imprisonment of dissidents Shi Tao and Li Zhi.
EPIC's 2004 Privacy and Human Rights Report on China:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/phr2004china.html
U.S. State Department's 2005 Report on Human Rights in China:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61605.htm
Student Wins Open Government Suit, Gains Access to Email Lists
A high school student in Kokomo, Indiana, won an open government lawsuit won
a case against the city to obtain an email list that he thought the mayor
was misusing. The student, Ryan Nees, wanted to ensure that the subscriber
list for the city's e-newsletter wasn't being misappropriated to send
political spam on behalf of the mayor, Matt McKillip. The city argued that
while Nees should have access to the email addresses, he should not be
allowed to keep a copy, since a provision of Indiana's open government laws
limits the distribution of "addresses" in order to protect residents'
privacy. The court held that "addresses" did not cover email addresses, and
that Nees should therefore be given a copy of the list.
Court Order in Nees v. McKillip (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/neesorder.html
Indiana's Access to Public Records Act:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title5/ar14/ch3.html
EPIC's Open Government Page:
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/
European Advisory Body: Webmail Scanning Can Be Interception
The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, an independent consultative
body affiliated with the European Commission, issued an opinion stating that
some email screening services may not comply with European data protection
legislation. In some cases, the group said, filtering based on content may
constitute an "unjustifiable interception of communications." While EU laws
allow email screening for viruses, spam or other content filtering could
abridge individuals' free speech if it blocks legitimate emails from
reaching their recipients. Scanning the content of emails can also be a
violation of data protection laws, unless Internet service providers or
email service providers must adequately inform email software users of the
blocking.
Working Party Opinion on Privacy Issues and Email Screening Services
(pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/wp29gmail.html
Proposed New Jersey Ban on Anonymous Internet Speech
New Jersey Assemblyman Peter Biondi has proposed a bill that would prohibit
Internet users from posting content anonymously. The bill requires Internet
service providers and providers of "interactive computer services" to
collect a legal name and address from anyone who posts information on the
Internet through their sites. The law also requires service providers to
have procedures in place to disclose a user's name and address if the user
posts "false or defamatory information" on a website. The bill draws no
distinction between defamation and information that is merely untrue, nor
does it account for the First Amendment right to anonymous free speech, as
outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court and New Jersey appeals courts.
Text of the New Jersey Bill Banning Online Anonymous Speech:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I2.HTM
EPIC's Page on Free Speech:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/
EPIC's Page on Watchtower Bible v. Stratton (U.S. Supreme Court Case on
Anonymous Speech):
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html
Post Office Sends More Junk than Regular Mail
The United States Postal Service now delivers more junk than regular mail.
In 2005, the volume of "Standard Mail" exceeded that of First Class,
Priority, and Express Mail. Over 100 billion pieces of junk mail were
delivered, while the later categories accounted for 99 billion mail pieces.
Junk mail, while weighing almost twice as much as regular mail, raised only
$19 billion in revenue while regular mail raised $41 billion. As a result of
increasing junk mail volumes and fraud committed through sweepstakes,
legislators from Missouri, Illinois, and New York have introduced
Do-Not-Mail legislation. These bills are modeled on the highly successful
Do-Not-Call Registry, which also began in state legislatures. But the
legislation faces many opponents. In addition to direct marketers,
Do-Not-Mail is disfavored by many who profit from junk mail, including
advertisers, printers, news media organizations, letter carriers, and the
Postal Service itself.
USPS Annual Report:
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/
EPIC Postal Privacy Page:
http://epic.org/privacy/postal/
=======================================================================
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Glenn Reynolds's "An Army of Davids"
=======================================================================
Glenn Reynolds. "An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower
Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths"
(Nelson Current, 2006).
http://www.powells.com/partner/24075/biblio/61-1595550542-0
At last count, there were an estimated 30.2 million blogs. Many of these web
sites begin and end with vacation photos or an excellent recipe for chile
rellenos. But a few blogs establish followings that are comparable to small
town newspapers or a popular talk show radio stations. These followings
evolve from simple lists of subscribers into communities and even political
movements.
Glenn Reynolds is one of the celebrity bloggers whose web site
instapundit.com typically ranks up near the top of blog rankings, as
measured by Technorati and others.
Reynolds's book, which is only partialy about the blog phenomenon, reveals
many of the tricks of the political blogger -- well respected personal
hobbies (brewing beer, producing CDs), quirky political views (put more guns
on planes), commitment to futurism (ideas on terraforming Mars), and a
general optimism about the ability of technology to level the playing field,
eliminate the dinosaurs, and solve world problems.
There is much in the book to debate. But that is, after all, also the
material of a good political blog.
---Marc Rotenberg
================================
EPIC Publications:
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Secod Edition" Daniel J.
Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98.
http://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html
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,
sypware, 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 2004: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and
Developments" (EPIC 2004). Price: $50.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2004
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an overview of
key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over 60 countries
around the world. The report outlines legal protections, new challenges, and
important issues and events relating to privacy.
Privacy & Human Rights 2004 is the most comprehensive report on privacy and
data protection ever published.
================================
"FOIA 2004: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," Harry
Hammitt, David Sobel and Tiffany Stedman, editors (EPIC 2004). Price:
$40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004
This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of the Freedom of
Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, and
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 22nd edition fully updates the
manual that lawyers, journalists and researchers have relied on for more
than 25 years. For those who litigate open government cases (or need to
learn how to litigate them), this is an essential reference manual.
================================
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on the
Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook
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.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/
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.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0
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, crypto and governance can be ordered at:
EPIC Bookstore http://www.epic.org/bookstore
"EPIC Bookshelf" at Powell's Books
http://www.powells.com/features/epic/epic.html
================================
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:
https://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/control/foia_notes
=======================================================================
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================
Beyond the Basics: Advanced Legal Topics in Open Source and Collaborative
Development in the Global Marketplace. University of Washington School of
Law. March 21, 2006. Seattle, Washington. For more
information:
http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/Events/FOSS/
Call for papers for the 34th Research Conference on Communication,
Information, and Internet Policy. Telecommunications Policy Research
Conference. Proposals should be based on current theoretical or empirical
research relevant to communication and information policy, and may be from
any disciplinary perspective. Deadline is March 31, 2006.
For more information:
http://www.tprc.org/TPRC06/call06.htm
Making PKI Easy to Use. National Institutes of Health. April 4-6, 2006.
Gaithersburg, Maryland. For more information:
http://middleware.internet2.edu/pki06/
First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security.
Vienna University of Technology. April 20-22, 2006. Vienna, Austria. For
more information:
http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ares2006/
Third International Conference on Security in Pervasive Computing.
University of York. April 19-20, 2006. York, United Kingdom. For more
information:
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/security/spc-2006.html
CHI 2006 Workshop on Privacy-Enhanced Personalization. UC Irvine Institute
for Software Research and the National Science Foundation.
April 22-23. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. For more information:
http://www.isr.uci.edu/pep06/
The First International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues in
IT (LSPI). CompLex. April 30-May 2, 2006. Hamburg, Germany. For more
information:
http://www.kierkegaard.co.uk/
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference (CFP 2006). Association for
Computing Machinery May 2-5, 2006. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://cfp2006.org/
Infosecurity New York. Reed Exhibitions. September 12-14, 2006. New York,
New York. For more information:
http://www.infosecurityevent.com
34th Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy.
Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. September 29-October 1, 2006.
Arlington, Virginia. For more information:
http://www.tprc.org/TPRC06/2006.htm
International Conference on Privacy, Security, and Trust (PST 2006).
University of Ontario Institute of Technology. October 20-November 1, 2006.
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. For more information:
http://www.businessandit.uoit.ca/pst2006/
BSR 2006 Annual Conference. Business for Social Responsibility. November
7-10, 2006. New York, New York. For more information:
http://www.bsr.org/BSRConferences/index.cfm
======================================================================
Subscription Information
======================================================================
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
https://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/epic_news
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
=======================================================================
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.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 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:
http://www.epic.org/donate
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 regulation of encryption and expanding
wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 13.05 -------------------------
.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the
NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed to be clean.
The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information Systems and
Services, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
====
This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and
confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take
no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to this e-mail
to highlight the error. You should also be aware that all electronic mail
from, to, or within Northumbria University may be the subject of a request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and related legislation, and
therefore may be required to be disclosed to third parties.
This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving
Northumbria University. Northumbria University will not be liable for any
losses as a result of any viruses being passed on.
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
