-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of EPIC News
Sent: 24 March 2006 22:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EPIC Alert 13.06
=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 13.06 March 24, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_13.06.html
=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================
[1] EPIC, Archive File Brief Supporting Release of Abu Ghraib Images [2]
EPIC Testifies Against Social Security Number Expansion [3] House Committee
Approves Bill to Weaken Data Breach Laws [4] Judge Restricts Justice
Department's Demand for Google Records [5] Security Flaws at Retailers
Affect Thousands of Debit Card Holders [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore:
Mark S. Monmonier's "Spying with Maps"
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================
[1] EPIC, Archive File Brief Supporting Release of Abu Ghraib Images
=======================================================================
EPIC and the National Security Archive have filed an amicus brief urging an
appeals court to permit the disclosure of photos and videos showing American
troops abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Pentagon has
refused to release the information to the American Civil Liberties Union
under the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that it would endanger U.S.
soldiers serving in Iraq. EPIC and the Archive argue that the government is
turning FOIA on its head by claiming that information likely to expose
government misconduct should be withheld to prevent public outrage.
In this case, the ACLU submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to
several government agencies for information about the treatment of detainees
in U.S. custody, including controversial images of abuse that had been
reported in the media. When the government failed to respond to the ACLU's
request nearly a year later, the organization filed suit in the District
Court for the Southern District of New York. U.S. District Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein reviewed a sampling of photos depicting abuse of detainees, and
ordered the government to release them in redacted form to protect the
privacy of the pictured individuals.
The government appealed the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
arguing that disclosure of the images would "endanger the life or physical
safety" of U.S. troops and coalition forces by provoking insurgent and
terrorist attacks against them. The government also said that the photos
should not be released, even in the redacted form required by Judge
Hellerstein, because such disclosure could invade the personal privacy of
the detainees.
The amicus brief written by EPIC and the Archive argues that the
government's claims undermine the FOIA's purpose of promoting open, honest
and accountable government. The brief shows that U.S. courts have never
allowed the potential for public anger to thwart the right to free
expression guaranteed by the Constitution and reflected, in part, by the
FOIA.
The brief also argues that disclosure of the photos will not threaten
personal privacy because Judge Hellerstein has already taken precautions to
safeguard the rights of the pictured detainees. Disclosure of these redacted
images will advance the public interest in examining the propriety of the
U.S. soldiers' conduct. Such disclosure will also help to hold higher
government officials responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Amicus Brief Filed by EPIC and the National Security Archive (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/darby/darby_amicus.pdf
District Court Decision in ACLU v. Department of Defense (pdf):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060313/aOrder092905.pdf
National Security Archive Press Release:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060313/index.htm
=======================================================================
[2] EPIC Testifies Against Social Security Number Expansion
=======================================================================
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Social Security, EPIC
Executive Director Marc Rotenberg urged Congress not to expand the uses of
the Social Security number and the Social Security card. "Every system of
identification is subject to error, misuse, and exploitation,"
Rotenberg said.
The hearing was the fourth in a series held by Representative McCrery
(R-LA) to focus on high-risk issues facing the Social Security number.
The hearings, held over the course of the last four months, examined fraud,
the use of the number in verifying employment eligibility, and possible
modification of the card.
Some members of Congress have proposed that the card contain digital photos,
machine-readable identifiers, and biometric identifiers that could turn the
Social Security card into a national ID card. Current Social Security cards,
while bearing anti-counterfeiting features such as those used on banknotes,
are not intended or designed to be used for identification.
In creating the Social Security Administration in the 1930s, Congress was
concerned with the number being used as a universal identifier that could
aid in government tracking of activities, and that the first act of the
newly formed Administration was to limit the card's use. Congress also
halted later expansions of expansion of the card's role by passing Section 7
of the Privacy Act of 1974. Putting the card to new, unintended uses,
Rotenberg testified, would erode privacy, running counter to this trend of
protection. Rotenberg also noted that the improper use of the SSN for
identification by the private sector contributes to identity theft.
Nevertheless, members of Congress, including Representatives David Dreier
(R-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), called for additions to the card.
Representative Drier insisted both that Social Security numbers are already
used for identification purposes by the private sector, and also that the
new photograph-bearing, machine-readable card would not, in fact, be an
identification document.
Frederick Streckewald of the Social Security Administration testified that
adding ID-like features to the Social Security card would cost at least $9.5
billion. Dr. Stephen Kent of the National Research Council also testified
that complex ID systems like the one proposed for the Social Security card
often are pressed into unintended secondary uses that can cause privacy and
security problems.
Testimony of EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg before Subcommittee on
Social Security (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/ssn/mar_16test.pdf
Subcommittee on Social Security, Fourth Hearing on High-Risk SSN Issues:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/ssn_hearings.html
EPIC's SSN Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/ssn
=======================================================================
[3] House Committee Approves Bill to Weaken Data Breach Laws
=======================================================================
The House Financial Services Committee approved legislation last week that
would roll back protections for many Americans' personal records.
The Financial Data Protection Act would create a weak national standard for
consumer protection, overriding or "preempting" stronger state consumer
protection laws.
For instance, comapnies only have to notify consumer of data breaches where
"information is reasonably likely to have been or to be misused in a manner
causing substantial harm or inconvenience." However, many states have more
stringent requirements that cause notices to be issued whenever a security
breach occurs. The reasoning behind these requirements is that businesses
have significant incentives not to give notice, and may overlook breaches
and their potential harms to avoid embarrassment. But other loopholes in the
language further limit the requirement to give notice. These include that
the information must be "sensitive financial personal information," and that
the company must know the scope of the breach (in many cases, the scope is
unknown).
The credit freeze provisions are similarly weak. Credit freeze is the
ability of an individual to limit disclosure of their consumer report to new
creditors, thus stopping companies from opening new accounts. This erects a
nearly perfect shield against identity theft. Many states allow any
concerned residents to freeze their credit as a precaution against future
fraud. H.R. 3997, however, only allows credit freeze once someone has become
a victim of identity theft. Furthermore, H.R. 3997 creates a difficult to
use freeze mechanism that requires the victim to provide proof of the crime,
to send the freeze request by certified mail, and it allows the consumer
reporting agency to wait five business days before implementing the freeze.
These inconveniences are designed to stop consumers from freezing their
reports.
The main driver of this legislation is preemption--the desire of many
businesses to supersede stricter state laws. Additionally, the bill
prohibits enforcement by the state attorneys general, weakening any possible
enforcement of the law. The bill will next be considered by other committees
in the House and Senate, where there is a possibility that it could be
strengthened.
H.R. 3997, the Financial Data Protection Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3997:
EPIC's Page on Choicepoint and Other Security Breaches:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/
Coalition letter on ID Theft Legislation:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/datamarker11.09.05.html
=======================================================================
[4] Judge Restricts Justice Department's Demand for Google Records
=======================================================================
On March 17, a federal district judge in California issued an order limiting
the Justice Department's demand for records from Google. While Google must
still turn over a list of 50,000 web addresses, it will not have to reveal
any Internet search terms submitted by users.
The government's demands had been significantly narrowed compared, to the
subpoena filed last August. That subpoena asked for the addresses of all web
sites indexed by Google, as well as every search term entered into Google
during a two-month period in 2005. Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL, were also
asked to provide records. Of the companies, Google alone objected, claiming
that the demand threatened Google's trade secrets and its image as a
protector of users' privacy.
In making the decision, Judge Ware of the Northern District of California
recognized that the demand affected not just Google, but also the privacy
rights of individual Google users. Not only do users want the terms they
search for to be private, search terms alone can sometimes reveal a user's
identity, such as when people search for their social security numbers or
credit card numbers to see if that information is available on the Internet.
The judge also noted that the government might, in looking through search
terms, decide to follow up on information for unauthorized purposes, quoting
a Justice Department spokesperson who said that "if something raised alarms,
we would hand it over)"
Because of these concerns, the judge ruled that Google did not have to turn
over search terms, but that the list of web addresses, since they did not
impact privacy, had to be turned over.
The Justice Department is seeking the records to conduct a statistical study
for the defense of the Child Online Protection Act, an online censorship law
that was blocked as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2004. The
government has given few details as to how it intends to use the
information--an omission that the judge called "particularly striking,"
considering the time the government had to prepare the case, and given that
it already had essentially the same information from the other major search
engines.
The Child Online Protection Act makes it a criminal offense for anyone to
post adult material on the web, unless they first collect information from
users proving that the user is not a minor. The Supreme Court barred
enforcement of the law, saying that the government had not proven that this
restriction on free speech was the most effective means to prevent minors
from viewing adult material on the Internet.
Text of the Decision in Google v. Gonzales (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/doj_court_order.pdf
Supreme Court Ruling on the Child Online Protection Act, Ashcroft v.
ACLU:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html
EPIC's Child Online Protection Act Page:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/
=======================================================================
[5] Security Flaws at Retailers Affect Thousands of Debit Card Holders
=======================================================================
Hundreds of thousands of debit cards may have been affected by fraud, but
affected banks, card companies, and retailers are releasing very few details
on the incident. Consumers first became aware of the problem as major banks,
including Citibank, Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual, and Bank of America
blocked ATM transactions in Canada, the United Kingdom and Russia, and
quietly began issuing new debit cards to customers.
The affected banks have since told reporters that the problems were related
to fraudulent transactions that had been traced to data breaches at
unspecified retailers. Recent reports have named OfficeMax and Sam's Club
stores as likely sources for the breach, although OfficeMax continues to
deny that it knew of any security mishaps.
Thieves have apparently been able to collect not only the data contained
within the magnetic strips on victims' ATM cards, but also the PIN codes
that allow access to their accounts. Fraudulent withdrawals in Canada, the
United Kingdom, and Russia apparently triggered the blocks in those
countries, and have led to the arrests of 14 people in New Jersey.
When consumers purchase goods with an ATM card, the PIN entered into the
register is supposed to be encrypted when it is sent out for verification,
and deleted after the transaction is complete. For the breaches to have
occurred, the information must have been improperly retained on a computer
and the thieves must have been able to decrypt the coded PINs, either
because the encryption key was carelessly stored on the same server, or
through hacking by an insider.
The scope of the breach underscores the need for laws that will protect
consumers from such crimes, by notifying them when breaches occur and
allowing them to freeze accounts if they suspect fraud. Many bills currently
before Congress provide loopholes that would allow breaches like this one to
go unreported, and would not allow victims to place security freezes on
their accounts unless they first filed a police report. Some of the proposed
laws would also eliminate state stronger state consumer protections.
EPIC's Identity Theft Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/idtheft/
Coalition letter on ID Theft Legislation:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/datamarker11.09.05.html
=======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
=======================================================================
Lawmakers Propose .xxx Domain
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) have proposed the Cyber
Safety for Kids Act, a bill that would require the creation of a .xxx
top-level domain. The law would require websites in the business of
distributing adult material to register and host all adult material at the
.xxx domain, instead of using any of the current top-level domains (such as
.com, .net, .biz or others). Those who fail to use the .xxx domain would be
subject to civil penalties by the Department of Commerce. The bill has not
yet been introduced.
Text of the .xxx TLD Bill (pdf):
http://www.boingboing.net/images/CyberSafetyforKids.pdf
Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Searches of Homes by Police
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in Georgia v. Randolph that police, who do
not have a warrant, may not search a home when one resident allows entry but
another refuses it. Officers found evidence of illegal drugs in a home after
a woman had given her consent to the officers but her husband had objected.
In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Matlock that one
occupant may give police permission to search a residence without a warrant
if the other resident either is absent or does not object.
Supreme Court Opinion in Georgia v. Randolph (pdf):
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1067.pdf
Federal Court: Fliers Must Complete Search Process Once It's Begun
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States v.
Aukai that travelers who begin the security screening process at airports
cannot change their minds. The court said passengers who walk through
airport metal detectors implicitly consent to a search, and they can't
revoke that consent even if they are chosen to undergo a more extensive
"secondary screening" process. The court did not rule on whether a passenger
could refuse searches that are more invasive than simple pat-downs.
Ninth Circuit Opinion in United States v. Aukai (pdf):
http://www.epic.org/redirect/airport_screening_opinion.html
EPIC's Passenger Profiling page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/profiling.html
Washington State Passes Pretexting Law
Washington State appears to be the first to pass legislation to protect
telephone records. The House and Senate have passed SB 6776, but the bill
still awaits the Governor's signature. SB 6776 prohibits the intentional
sale of phone records without consent of the account holder.
It also prohibits pretexting. Under the law, it is a "class c felony" to
sell, pretext, or knowingly purchase phone records, while it is a "gross
misdemeanor" to knowingly receive records. There are also civil remedies,
including a $5,000 liquidated damages award and attorneys'
fees. Government entities and telephone companies are exempt from the law.
EPIC Illegal Access to Phone Records Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/iei/
Washington State Senate Bill 6776:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6776&year=2006
RFID Chips Vulnerable to Viruses
A study by European researchers has revealed that radio frequency
identification (RFID) systems can be affected by viruses encoded into
individual chips. Melanie Rieback, Bruno Crispo, and Andrew Tanenbaum have
authored a paper describing how the remotely readable tags can be programmed
to infect the machines that read them and the databases that store their
information. Such malicious programs could then force the systems to produce
more infected tags, further spreading the virus.
Text of the RFID Virus Paper (pdf):
http://www.rfidvirus.org/papers/percom.06.pdf
Paper Authors' Page on RFID Viruses:
http://www.rfidvirus.org/
EPIC's RFID page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/
Deleted Gmails to be Turned Over in FTC Case
A federal magistrate judge has ordered that Google turn over all of the
email correspondence of a Gmail user, including emails that he has deleted.
The Federal Trade Commission, investigating a credit counseling scam,
subpoenaed the emails of Peter Baker, the owner of a company linked to the
case. The subpoena asked not only for the email in Baker's Gmail mailboxes,
but also for deleted emails that were retained on Google computers. Google's
privacy policy says that copies of deleted email may remain on active
servers for up to 60 days, or indefinitely on offline backup servers.
Google's Gmail Privacy Policy:
http://gmail.google.com/mail/help/privacy.html
EPIC's Gmail page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html
Homeland Security Gets Another 'F' for Computer Security
A report by the House Government Reform Committee found that many federal
agencies are failing to protect their computer and information networks. The
committee gave the Department of Homeland Security an 'F'
for a third straight year. The departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy,
State, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs also
received failing grades again this year. The annual report bases the grades
on information the agencies submit to the White House Office of Management
and Budget, and the agencies' own internal assessments.
Report and Testimony from Various Agency Leaders:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/dhs_computer_security.html
=======================================================================
[7] EPIC Bookstore: Mark S. Monmonier's "Spying with Maps"
=======================================================================
Mark S. Monmonier. "Spying with Maps: Surveillance Technologies and the
Future of Privacy" (University of Chicago Press, 2002).
http://www.powells.com/partner/24075/biblio/7-0226534278-1
"Maps, as we know, help us find our way around. But they're also powerful
tools for someone hoping to find you. Widely available in electronic and
paper formats, maps offer revealing insights into our movements and
activities, even our likes and dislikes. In Spying with Maps, the
"mapmatician" Mark Monmonier looks at the increased use of geographic data,
satellite imagery, and location tracking across a wide range of fields such
as military intelligence, law enforcement, market research, and traffic
engineering. Could these diverse forms of geographic monitoring, he asks,
lead to grave consequences for society? To assess this very real threat, he
explains how geospatial technology works, what it can reveal, who uses it,
and to what effect.
Despite our apprehension about surveillance technology, Spying with Maps is
not a jeremiad, crammed with dire warnings about eyes in the sky and
invasive tracking. Monmonier's approach encompasses both skepticism and the
acknowledgment that geospatial technology brings with it unprecedented
benefits to governments, institutions, and individuals, especially in an era
of asymmetric warfare and bioterrorism. Monmonier frames his explanations of
what this new technology is and how it works with the question of whether
locational privacy is a fundamental right.
Does the right to be left alone include not letting Big Brother (or a legion
of Little Brothers) know where we are or where we've been? What sacrifices
must we make for homeland security and open government?"
================================
EPIC Publications:
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second 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
=======================================================================
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
DNA on Trial: A Teach-In on Genetic Justice. Provisions Library.
Washington, D.C., April 1, 2006. For more information:
http://www.provisionslibrary.org/
Making PKI Easy to Use. National Institutes of Health. April 4-6, 2006.
Gaithersburg, Maryland. For more information:
http://middleware.internet2.edu/pki06/
Transparency and Accountability: The Use of Personal Information within the
Government. Department of Homeland Security. April 5. Washington, D.C.
Registration recommended. For more information:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0699.xml
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
Access to Knowledge Conference. Yale Information Society Project.
April 21-23, 2006. New Haven, Connecticut. For more information:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.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/
Conference on Data Protection and Security: A Transnational Discussion.
International Association of Young Lawyers. May 5-6, 2006. Washington, DC.
For more information:
http://www.aija.org/modules/events/index.php?id=18
Call for papers for the CRCS Workshop 2006: Data Surveillance and Privacy
Protection. Center for Research on Computation and Society. June 3, 2006.
Cambridge, Massachusetts. For more information:
http://crcs.deas.harvard.edu/workshop/2006/index.html
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 13.06 -------------------------
.
--
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
*************************************************************************************
|
