From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of EPIC News
Sent: 23 February 2006 23:28
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: EPIC Alert 13.04
=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 13.04 February 23, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_13.04.html
=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================
[1] Court Orders Release of NSA Spy Documents to EPIC [2] EPIC Urges Privacy
for Whois Data [3] Report on US-VISIT: Government is Lax on Security,
Privacy [4] Congress Slams Tech Firms On Censorship in China [5] Federal
Intelligence Agencies Reclassify Thousands of Documents [6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: James Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace"
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================
[1] Court Orders Release of NSA Spy Documents to EPIC
=======================================================================
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by EPIC, a federal
judge has ordered the Department of Justice to either process and release
documents related to the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance
program or explain why it will withhold them by March 8. It is the first
court ruling involving the controversial domestic spying operation.
"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."
He continued, "Given the great public and media attention that the
government's warrantless surveillance program has garnered and the recent
hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee, the public interest is
particularly well-served by the timely release of the requested documents."
EPIC submitted FOIA requests to four Justice Department offices the same day
that the New York Times reported a secret presidential order authorizing the
National Security Agency to conduct warrantless surveillance of
international telephone and Internet communications on American soil. Noting
the extraordinary public interest in the program, as well as its potential
illegality, EPIC asked the offices to expedite the processing of its
requests. The Justice Department agreed that the requests warranted priority
treatment, but failed to comply with the FOIA's usual time limit of twenty
working days.
Last month, EPIC filed suit against the Justice Department to compel the
immediate disclosure of information about the warrantless surveillance.
EPIC's case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union and the National Security Archive concerning requests for
the same documents.
Once the Justice Department finishes processing the material, any decision
to withhold the requested documents will be subject to Judge Kennedy's
review. He will have the ability to order "in camera"
production of the material and make an independent determination concerning
public disclosure.
In related news, the American Bar Association has issued a report calling
upon President Bush to abide by constitutional checks and balances, and to
end electronic surveillance inside the United States that does not comply
with the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The
Association expressed overwhelming support for the report, which also urged
the Congress to undertake comprehensive investigations of the Bush
Administration's domestic surveillance activities.
Judge Kennedy's order in EPIC v. DOJ:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/pi_order.pdf
EPIC's Domestic Surveillance FOIA Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia
American Bar Association report:
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news021306_3.html
EPIC's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa
=======================================================================
[2] EPIC Urges Privacy for Whois Data
=======================================================================
On February 13, EPIC submitted comments urging privacy protections for Whois
data, in response to ICANN's Preliminary Task Force Report on the Purpose of
Whois. Whois provides the personal contact information for the owners of
domain names. The Task Force was put together in order to determine how the
Whois function of domain name registry is supposed to work, and what
information about domain name owners should be made public.
ICANN is the corporation that manages the assignment of domain names (such
as epic.org) to Internet Protocol addresses (such as 209.183.239.12). Every
person or company that registers a domain name is required to make certain
information publicly accessible to a Whois lookup. This information includes
the contact information for the domain name holder, including her mailing
address, email address, telephone number, and fax number. This same
information has to be provided for the site's administrative contact and
technical contact.
EPIC recommended that ICANN adopt "Formulation One," which limits the use of
Whois data to technical and administrative purposes only. EPIC specifically
opposed a proposal that would make Whois data available for broader
purposes, such as law enforcement and copyright investigations.
Since ICANN doesn't let users register anonymously, EPIC contended, "anyone
with Internet access has access to Whois data, including stalkers, corrupt
governments cracking down on dissidents, spammers, aggressive intellectual
property lawyers, and police agents without legal authority." The comments
also pointed out that, since the information was available worldwide, and
available for all registrants, Whois data can prove dangerous to "political,
artistic, and religious groups around the world [who] rely on the Internet
to provide information and express views while avoiding persecution."
EPIC further explained that ICANN's Whois policy conflicts with the laws of
many countries that have comprehensive privacy laws and the European Union's
Data Protection Directive. The Directive requires that when information is
collected, it be used only for its intended purpose.
EPIC argued that much of this information in Whois is unnecessary for its
intended purpose, which was to allow network administrators to find and fix
technical problems with minimal hassle in order to maintain the stability of
the Internet. Providing more information that is necessary for this basic
purpose, EPIC said, could also increase the risk of identity theft for
domain name holders.
ICANN's Preliminary Report on Whois:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/prelim_whois.html
EPIC's Comments on Whois:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments/msg00042.html
EPIC's Whois Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/whois/
Privacy and Human Rights 2004 Report on Whois:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/phr2004_whois.html
=======================================================================
[3] Report on US-VISIT: Government is Lax on Security, Privacy
=======================================================================
The Department of Homeland Security's sluggishness has jeopardized the
effectiveness of the US-VISIT border security program, according to a new
report from the Government Accountability Office. Homeland Security has yet
to develop and begin implementing a system security plan and privacy impact
assessment, the key recommendation that the GAO made when it assessed the
program two and a half years ago.
US-VISIT requires foreign nationals entering or exiting the country to
submit biometric and biographical information. This data collection often
begins before a visitor buys her plane ticket, as U.S. consular offices
abroad may, before issuing a U.S. visa, collect fingerscans from potential
visitors and compare them against those in a criminal database. Fingerscans
are again collected upon the visitor's arrival in the U.S. for verification
and then stored in a government database, along with travelers' arrival and
departure records. Failure to be processed through this departure
confirmation system could jeopardize a visitor's re-admittance to the U.S.,
as the government compares the manifest information provided by air and
cruise lines to ascertain that visitors have not overstayed their visas.
The GAO report found that US-VIST has yet to complete a strategic plan and
key cost-benefit analyses, despite the $1.4 billion already spent on the
program and despite GAO's strong recommendation in 2002 that it do so.
"However, although considerable time has passed since the recommendations
were made, key actions have not yet been taken in such critical areas as (1)
assessing security risks and planning for cost-effective controls to address
the risks, (2) determining -- before US-VISIT increments are deployed --
whether each increment will produce mission value commensurate with cost and
risk, and (3) ensuring that each increment is adequately tested," the GAO
said.
Of the 18 recommendations the GAO suggested in 2002 to improve US-VISIT, the
Department of Homeland Security has only implemented two, the GAO said.
Homeland Security has "also taken steps to implement the other
recommendations partially completed 11 and is just beginning on five,"
the GAO said. The GAO also said that the longer it took to implement the
recommendations, "the greater the risk that the program will not meet its
stated goals and commitments."
Last month, Randolph Hite, GAO's Director of Information Technology
Architecture and Systems Issues, testified about US-VISIT before the Senate
Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
Hite described problems with US-VISIT's current tests on the use of radio
frequency identification (RFID) tags in arrival and departure forms to track
people traveling through land ports. RFID tags do not ensure the document
belongs to the person carrying it and the technology is imperfect, Director
Hite said.
According to the GAO, "Despite DHS's estimate in February 2003, that the
total overall cost of the US-VISIT program would be about $7.2 billion
through fiscal year 2014, the potential government wide cost of US-VISIT
over just a 10-year period could be about twice as much." For Fiscal Year
2007, President Bush has requested $399.5 million for the US-VISIT program,
$62.9 million more than it received in 2006. Most of the increase will go
toward the expansion of US-VISIT's fingerprint system; it will now capture
all 10 fingerprints instead of two.
Government Accountability Office Report on US-VISIT (pdf):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06296.pdf
Testimony of Randolph C. Hite, Government Accountability Office, Before the
Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security (Jan. 25, 2006) (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/hite_usvisit.html
Department of Homeland Security's Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2007 (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/dhs2007budget.html
EPIC's US-VISIT Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visit/
Department of Homeland Security's US-VISIT Page:
http://www.dhs.gov/us-visit
=======================================================================
[4] Congress Slams Tech Firms On Censorship in China
=======================================================================
On February 15, a subcommittee of the House International Relations
Committee held hearings on the presence of U.S. tech firms in China, and the
complicity of these companies in suppressing free speech in China.
Representatives from Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, and Google testified before
the subcommittee.
Each of the four firms has been implicated in helping the Chinese government
maintain a strict control over speech in the People's Republic of China.
Yahoo, for instance, gave Chinese authorities data on at least two of its
users who posted information critical of the government online. The two
users, Shi Tao and Li Zhi, were imprisoned for ten and eight years,
respectively, for separate incidents of speaking out against the government.
Cisco has come under fire for selling equipment that can be used to monitor
and censor speech, as well as training Chinese police in its use. Upon
requests by the government, Microsoft removed the blog of another
cyberdissident, Zhao Jing (aka "Anti"), not just from Chinese servers, but
from circulation entirely. Google, along with other search engines in
China, has self-censored its search results in exchange for being able to
operate in-country.
The hearings took a decidedly hostile tone, with both Republicans and
Democrats harshly criticizing the assembled witnesses for the companies.
Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), pointedly asked the witnesses if they were
"ashamed" of their companies' actions. Representatives also blamed China for
its poor human rights record and its policies of censoring and harassing or
imprisoning dissidents. Yahoo and Google were most heavily grilled, while
Cisco was largely left unquestioned.
Human rights experts who testified in the next panel seemed to indicate,
however, that Cisco should have received further scrutiny. Harry Wu, of the
China Information Center, and Lucie Morillon of Reporters Without Borders
both targeted Cisco for training Chinese police in the use of Cisco
networking equipment that can be used to monitor online speech.
The panel's witnesses, who also included Sharon Hom of Human Rights in
China, Xiao Qiang of Berkeley's China Internet Project, and Libby Liu of
Radio Free Asia all called for tech companies in China to take a firmer
stand against speech-repressive policies overseas.
Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ), who chairs the Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations, and who called
for the hearing, has proposed a bill that would, among many other things,
prevent search engines and Internet hosting services from operating within
China and other designated countries.
Hearing Notice, "The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or
Suppression?":
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/af021506.htm
Subcommittee Home Page (includes links to hearing testimony and
webcast):
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/afhear.htm
Human Rights in China Home Page:
http://www.hrichina.org/public/
Reporters Without Borders China Page:
http://www.rsf.org/country-50.php3?id_mot=88&Valider=OK
Draft Version of Rep. Smith's Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/gofa2006.html
Privacy and Human Rights 2004 China Report:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/phr2004china.html
EPIC's Filters and Freedom 2.0:
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0/
=======================================================================
[5] Federal Intelligence Agencies Reclassify Thousands of Documents
=======================================================================
Intelligence agencies have reclassified about 9,500 documents that were
available to the public for years at the National Archives, according to a
recent report by the New York Times. The effort began seven years ago after
the CIA and five other agencies complained about the implications of a
declassification order signed by President Clinton in 1995. About 8,000
documents have been reclassified during the Bush presidency alone.
Documents that have been taken off the Archive's shelves through the program
include decades-old reports from the State Department, as well as historical
documents that researchers photocopied and have kept in their files.
The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office launched an
investigation into the program after receiving complaints from historians
and reviewing 16 reclassified documents, none of which were found to warrant
secrecy. Furthermore, the office had not been informed of reclassifications
made through the program, even though a 2003 law requires reclassifications
to be reported to the office. While the office cannot order that the
documents be declassified, its director, William J. Leonard, is the
President's top advisor on classification policy and may urge the White
House to terminate the program.
A hint of the reclassification program's existence came in 2004, when a
State Department official informed the agency's Historical Advisory
Committee that the CIA had been reclassifying State Department documents. In
that meeting, CIA officials "claimed the right to remove documents from the
open files that, in their view, had never been 'properly declassified.'"
Under current executive orders, secret documents must be made public after
25 years unless there is a compelling reason to keep them classified.
New York Times, U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/politics/21reclassify.html
National Archives Information on Declassification:
http://www.archives.gov/about/regulations/part-1260.html
Minutes of the State Department Historical Advisory Committee Meeting (Sept.
2004):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac0904.html
EPIC's Open Government Litigation Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/litigation/
EPIC's Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws:
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2004/
=======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
=======================================================================
New Anti-Identity Theft Resource for Katrina/Rita Victims
EPIC has prepared an easy to use guide for those affected by the devastation
of last year's hurricane season. The involuntary relocation of 300,000
persons dispossessed many people of their property, means of providing
identification, and community support for establishing identity, thus
placing those affected at a higher risk of identity theft. To help, EPIC has
created a resource to advise evacuees on what to do if they suspect identity
theft, and the best means of protecting themselves from identity thieves.
The best defense against identity theft is monitoring your credit report and
placing restrictions with credit reporting agencies on providing information
about you to credit grantors or others.
EPIC's Identity Theft Resource for Hurricane Victims:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/idtheft/katrina.html
EPIC Urges Personal Data Be Scrubbed from Court Files
In comments to the federal judiciary, EPIC called for changes to procedural
rules to shield personal information in court files from disclosure. EPIC
argued that the very purpose of public records -- the ability of the
individual to learn about the government -- is turned on its head when the
records include excessive personal information.
Instead of being a citizen's window into government activities, these
records are giving the government, law enforcement, and data brokers a
window into our daily lives. EPIC made several specific recommendations,
including preventing commercial uses of public records, limiting bulk access
to records, and removing unique identifiers from the records.
EPIC Comments on Personal Data in Court Files:
http://epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/frcpcom21506.html
EPIC Privacy and Public Records Page:
http://epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/
Canada to Establish Do-Not-Call List
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is
seeking comments from the public on the development of a national
do-not-call registry and telemarketing rules. Comments are due by May 10th.
The CRTC will also hold a public meeting on the proceeding from May 2-5,
2006 in Gatineau, Quebec.
Do-Not-Call Registry Press Release:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2006/r060220.htm
EPIC Warns Ethics Board of Attorneys' Use of Pretexting
In a letter sent to lawyers' ethics boards, EPIC warned that attorneys
appear to be major purchases of "pretexting" services, and that use of such
services is unethical under state professional responsibility rules.
Pretexting is the practice of using false pretenses to trick a company into
releasing personal information. EPIC urged state boards to evaluate
pretexting under ethics rules, and to issue opinions to attorneys advising
them not to pretext or hire investigators who use pretexting to obtain
information. Generally, ethical rules governing attorneys prevent them from
engaging in fraud, dishonesty, or misrepresentation. Since pretexting
involves impersonation or other fraud to obtain personal information, EPIC
argued that ethics boards must advise attorneys not to engage in the
practice.
EPIC Letter to Ethics Boards:
http://epic.org/privacy/iei/attyltr22106.html
EPIC Pretexting Page:
http://epic.org/privacy/iei/
Groups Urge San Francisco to Deploy Privacy-Friendly Wifi Network
The ACLU of Northern California, EFF, and EPIC submitted comments to San
Francisco TechConnect urging it to establish a privacy-friendly municipal
broadband service in the city. San Francisco TechConnect has been tasked by
Mayor Gavin Newsom to research options for a free or low-cost municipal
Internet service. In October 2005, the groups highlighted privacy issues in
a letter to TechConnect, and the agency incorporated the issues as questions
posed to providers in the city's formal request for proposals. Provider
proposals were due this week, and several were expected to pitch systems
that would use personal information for advertising or otherwise implicate
privacy interests.
The coalition comments urged TechConnect to set minimum standards for
privacy protection in the new network, including accommodations for
anonymous and pseudonymous users, limits on the retention of personal
information, and strong standards protecting users' interests when legal
demands are made for network data.
Coalition Letter on San Francisco Municipal Broadband:
http://epic.org/privacy/internet/sfws22106.html
San Francisco TechConnect:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_page.asp?id=33899
UK Moves Closer To Mandatory National ID Card
The House of Commons last week voted to require that all Britons seeking
passports also obtain a government-issued identity card that would include
biometrics such as a scanned fingerprint or a digital iris image. Privacy
advocates, including Privacy International, have vigorously opposed the
plan. A report by leading academics from the London School of Economics
indicates that the ID scheme will be costly, inefficient, and easily
subverted. The proposal goes next to the House of Lords.
London School of Economics Report (pdf):
http://is2.lse.ac.uk/IDcard/identityreport.pdf
EPIC's National ID Cards and REAL ID Act Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/
Houston Proposes Cameras in Public and in Private Places
Houston's Chief of Police proposed last week to install video surveillance
cameras in downtown streets, shopping malls, apartment complexes and even
private homes, in order to fight against crime and to remedy a shortage of
police officers. Chief Harold Hurtt's intended purpose is to make people
"feel safer" "in reality and perception."
However, most studies of video surveillance have shown that cameras do not
reduce crime in public places, because criminals simply go elsewhere to
commit their crimes out of camera range. Though the cameras may make
residents "feel safer," their actual safety is unchanged.
Houston Chronicle Article on Proposed Cameras:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3663189.html
EPIC's Video Surveillance Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/default.html
FTC Announces Settlement in CardSystems Security Breach
On February 23, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had reached a
settlement with CardSystems Solutions, Inc., whose poor security practices
led to the breach of tens of millions of consumers'
personal information. The company's unnecessary storage of personal data,
along with its lack of network protections, allowed fraudsters to rack up
millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases. The settlement requires
CardSystems and its successor company, Solidus Networks, to implement a
stronger security program and be audited every two years for the next twenty
years.
FTC Press Release on CardSystems:
http://ftc.gov/opa/2006/02/cardsystems_r.htm
Text of the CardSystems Settlement Agreement (pdf):
http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523148/0523148consent.pdf
EPIC's Page on Identity Theft:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/idtheft/
=======================================================================
[7] EPIC Bookstore: James Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace"
=======================================================================
The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization.
Penguin Books, 1983.
http://www.powells.com/partner/24075/biblio/0140067485
"In this remarkable tour de force of investigative reporting, James Bamford
exposes the inner workings of America's largest, most secretive, and
arguably most intrusive intelligence agency. The NSA has long eluded public
scrutiny, but The Puzzle Palace penetrates its vast network of power and
unmasks the people who control it, often with shocking disregard for the
law. With detailed information on the NSA's secret role in the Korean
Airlines disaster, Iran-Contra, the first Gulf War, and other major world
events of the 80s and 90s, this is a brilliant account of the use and abuse
of technological espionage."
================================
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
=======================================================================
A Universal DNA Database: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks? The National
Academies. Washington, DC. February 28, 2006. For more
information:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/policyfellows/Events.html
Call for papers for the Workshop on Generating Collaborative Research in the
Ethical Design of Surveillance Infrastructures. The deadline for proposals
is March 1, 2006. For more information:
http://communication.utexas.edu/ethicalsurveillance/
IAPP National Summit. International Association of Privacy Professionals.
Washington, DC. March 8-10, 2006. For more information:
https://www.privacyassociation.org/registration
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/
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/
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 13.04 -------------------------
.
--
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
*************************************************************************************
|
