You are here:
WorldLII >>
Databases >>
EPIC Alert >>
2004 >>
[2004] EPICAlert 2
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Articles
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Help
EPIC Alert 11.02 [2004] EPICAlert 2
EPIC ALERT
Volume 11.02 January 29, 2004
Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.02.html
Table of Contents
[1] EPIC FOIA Docs: Northwest Gave NASA Info on Millions of Passengers
[2] Docs Show Treasury Dept. Sided with Industry on Privacy Law
[3] Bush Urges USA PATRIOT Act Renewal in State of the Union Address
[4] Report Finds "Fundamental" Flaws in Pentagon E-Voting System
[5] Bruce Schneier: "Moving Towards Universal Surveillance"
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC Bookstore: The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
[1] EPIC FOIA Docs: Northwest Gave NASA Info on Millions of Passengers
EPIC has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) revealing that Northwest Airlines provided the NationalAeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) with three months ofpassenger information for research purposes.
Confirmation of the disclosure came after a two-year effort by EPIC toobtain information about the government's post-9/11 development
of airtravel security measures. In July 2002, EPIC received documents fromthe Transportation Security Administration showing that
NASA met withNorthwest officials in December 2001 to discuss NASA research,
including the development of "non-invasive neuro-logic sensors" aswell as passenger screening technology. Days later, NASA asked
thatNorthwest provide "system-wide Northwest Airlines passenger data fromJuly, August and September 2001" for use in NASA's "research
anddevelopment work."
In September 2003, it was reported that JetBlue Airways turned overpassenger information to a Defense Department contractor for use
in adata mining and passenger profiling study. At the time, a Northwestofficial told the New York Times, "we do not provide that
type ofinformation to anyone." In the wake of the JetBlue incident, EPICsubmitted a FOIA request to NASA asking for records related
tonegotiations for passenger information with Northwest or otherairlines. In response, NASA provided EPIC documents confirming thatNorthwest
gave NASA three months of passenger information for use in adata mining and passenger profiling study. The documents show that inSeptember
2003 NASA returned to Northwest the CDs on which thepassenger data were provided, after retaining the data for nearly twoyears.
In an e-mail message to Northwest, a NASA researcher noted,
"you may have heard about the problems that JetBlue is now havingafter providing passenger data for a project similar to ours."
EPIC has filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation,
alleging that Northwest's disclosure of passenger information withoutpassengers' consent violated Northwest's publicly posted privacypolicy
and constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. EPIChas also filed suit against NASA to obtain additional documents aboutthe
disclosure that the agency has withheld.
The FOIA documents obtained by EPIC from NASA are available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa/
EPIC's complaint to the Department of Transportation against Northwestis available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nwa_comp.pdf
The complaint in EPIC's FOIA suit against NASA is available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/nasa_comp.pdf
For more information about air travel privacy, see EPIC's Air TravelPrivacy Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/
For more information about passenger profiling, see EPIC's ProfilingPage:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/
[2] Docs Show Treasury Dept. Sided with Industry on Privacy Law
EPIC has obtained 230 pages of records from the Department of theTreasury regarding industry lobbying on recent amendments to the
FairCredit Reporting Act. The documents focus on preemption -- whetherCongress should supercede state financial privacy laws. The
financialservices industry lobbied strongly in favor of weak federal law thatwould preempt stronger state regulation and protect
the continued saleof personal information. Consumer advocates argued against preemptionso that states could pass stronger laws to
protect privacy and curbidentity theft. The documents show that pro-preemption specialinterest groups had extensive access to agency
decisionmakers and gaveinsight into policy-making processes at the agency. Ultimately, theTreasury Department supported preemption,
reasoning that a nationalstandard was necessary for access to credit and for addressingidentity theft.
The documents show that the agency was inundated with requests fromspecial interest groups to meet and discuss FCRA preemption. Theserequests
came from such entities as the Consumer Data IndustryAssociation, Alston & Bird, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, JPMorgan Chase,
Wells Fargo, Capital One, Morgan Stanley, FinancialServices Roundtable, Experian, and the "Partnership to ProtectConsumer Credit."
(See EPIC Alert 10.06.) It appears that theTreasury Department discussed preemption with only two individualswith consumer perspectives,
and one of those consultations occurredover e-mail.
By January 2003, senior officials had already decided to supportpreemption of state laws. On January 27, 2003, Assistant Secretaryfor
Financial Institutions Wayne Abernathy sent an e-mail discussingwriting an article in favor of preemption for an industry-orientednewsletter,
noting that the publication "could give us an opportunityto test our message on a friendly audience." The Treasury Departmentannounced
its support for preemption formally in March 2003.
Preemption involves complex issues that dogged even the authors of theFederalist Papers. Both proponents and opponents of preemption
havestrong arguments, but it appears as though the Department of theTreasury did not weigh these views. The documents are devoid
ofpolicy analysis; they contain only policy conclusions that are highlyfavorable to the financial services industry.
The agency did withhold documents that could contain policy analysis,
but the overall nature of the Freedom of Information Act materialsuggests that no policy debate took place. EPIC has filed an appealto obtain these withheld documents.
Documents EPIC received from the Department of the Treasury areavailable at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/preemption/treasfcrafoia.pdf
For more information about preemption, see EPIC's Preemption Page:
http://epic.org/privacy/preemption/
[3] Bush Urges USA PATRIOT Act Renewal in State of the Union Address
In his annual State of the Union address on January 20, President Bushurged Congress to renew controversial provisions of the USA
PATRIOTAct, many which will sunset in December 2005. "The terrorist threatwill not expire on that schedule," he said.
President Bush's plan to ease the fear of terrorist attacks focuses on"tracking terrorist threats," "patrolling our coasts and borders,"
and"examining airline passenger lists." "[W]e must continue to give ourhomeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool
they needto defend us," Bush stressed, pointing to the USA PATRIOT Act as "one ofthose essential tools." "If these methods are good
for huntingcriminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists," hestated. Two of the more controversial provisions of
the Actset to expire next year allow the government to seize library patron’srecords without giving notice and conduct Internet surveillancewithout
a warrant.
President Bush continued to focus on the USA PATRIOT Act in the daysfollowing the State of the Union speech, pledging more money for
lawenforcement and surveillance in order to expand the powers of the law.
His proposed policy of increased defense funding would amount to $2.8billion in additional domestic defense spending (a 9.7% increaseoverall)
and almost $500 million more in counterterrorism financingfor the Department of Justice (a 19% increase overall).
Meanwhile, a federal judge this week struck down a portion of the USAPATRIOT Act as unconstitutional. Humanitarian groups seeking
todistribute informational material to refugees challenged the provisionthat made it illegal to give expert advice or assistance
to groupsconsidered foreign organizations sponsoring terror. As to thecontested provision, the judge wrote: "The USA Patriot Act
places nolimitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which isprohibited, and instead bans the provision of all expert
advice andassistance regardless of its nature," violating the right to freedomof speech.
The text of the State of the Union address is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html
For more information about the PATRIOT Act, see EPIC's USA PATRIOT ActPage:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
[4] Report Finds "Fundamental" Flaws in Pentagon E-Voting System
A recent peer review study of an Internet-based voting systemdeveloped by the Pentagon found "fundamental" security risks andrecommended
that the system not be used in the 2004 general election.
The report, released by the Security Peer Review Group of the FederalVoting Assistance Program, reviewed the election system known
as theSecure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE). SERVEis intended to allow personnel to vote in their local elections
overthe Internet, from anywhere in the world. SERVE is slated to beavailable for use by citizens abroad and military personnel from
sevenstates to vote in the 2004 general elections.
The report found that SERVE suffered from various security weaknessesfound in other electronic voting systems, and more fundamentalsecurity
problems due to its reliance on the Internet. SERVE lacks apaper audit feature, and is also vulnerable to common Internetattacks,
such as viruses or hacking. Moreover, the report found thatSERVE was vulnerable to a broad range of threats, from loneindividuals
manipulating the system to well-organized attacks. Suchincidents could result in election tampering and disenfranchisement,
affecting the results of local and presidential elections. Further,
the report found that such assaults could go undetected. Because ofthe relative ease of perpetrating such attacks and the great damagethat
would result, the report advocated that SERVE not be used at all.
The report states that these vulnerabilities stem from thearchitecture of the Internet and computing. After reviewing a numberof
modifications of SERVE and determining that none addressed thefundamental weaknesses, the report concluded that a wholesale redesignand
replacement of many of the computers on the Internet would berequired to address these problems. The report found that the mostpromising
of the SERVE variations is a kiosk architecture that wouldnot rely on unsecured software or the Internet.
The SERVE Security Analysis Report:
http://www.servesecurityreport.org/
Verified Voting Coalition:
http://www.verifiedvoting.com
For more information about electronic voting, see EPIC's Voting Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/
[5] Bruce Schneier: "Moving Towards Universal Surveillance"
Last week the Supreme Court let stand the Justice Department's rightto secretly arrest non-citizen residents. Combined with thegovernment's
power to designate foreign prisoners of war as "enemycombatants" in order to ignore international treaties regulating theirincarceration,
and their power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizenswithout charge or access to an attorney, the United States is lookingmore and
more like a police state.
Since 9/11, the Justice Department has asked for, and largelyreceived, additional powers that allow it to perform an unprecedentedamount
of surveillance of American citizens and visitors. The USAPATRIOT Act, passed in haste after 9/11, started the ball rolling. InDecember,
a provision slipped into an appropriations bill allowing theFBI to obtain personal financial information from banks, insurancecompanies,
travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S.
Postal Service, jewelry stores, casinos, and car dealerships without awarrant
--
because they're all construed as financial institutions.
Starting this year, the U.S. government is photographing andfingerprinting foreign visitors into this country from all but 27other
countries.
The litany continues. CAPPS-II, the government's vast computerizedsystem for probing the backgrounds of all passengers boarding flights,
will be fielded this year. Total Information Awareness, a programthat would link diverse databases and allow the FBI to collateinformation
on all Americans, was halted at the federal level after ahuge public outcry, but is continuing at a state level with federalfunding.
Over New Year's, the FBI collected the names of 260,000people staying at Las Vegas hotels. More and more, at every level ofsociety,
the "Big Brother is Watching You" style of total surveillanceis slowly becoming a reality.
Security is a trade-off. It makes no sense to ask whether aparticular security system is effective or not -- otherwise you'd allbe
wearing bulletproof vests and staying immured in your home. Theproper question to ask is whether the trade-off is worth it. Is
thelevel of security gained worth the costs, whether in money, inliberties, in privacy, or in convenience?
This is a personal decision, and one greatly influenced by thesituation. For most of us, bulletproof vests are not worth the costand
inconvenience. For some of us, home burglar alarm systems are.
And most of us lock our doors at night.
Terrorism is no different. We need to weigh each securitycountermeasure. Is the additional security against the risks worththe costs?
Are there smarter things we can be spending our money on?
How does the risk of terrorism compare with the risks in other aspectsof our lives: automobile accidents, domestic violence, industrialpollution,
and so on? Are there costs that are just too expensive forus to bear?
Unfortunately, it's rare to hear this level of informed debate. Fewpeople remind us how minor the terrorist threat really is. Rarely
dowe discuss how little identification has to do with security, and howbroad surveillance of everyone doesn't really prevent terrorism.
Andwhere's the debate about what's more important: the freedoms andliberties that have made America great or some temporary security?
Instead, the DOJ (fueled by a strong police mentality inside theAdministration) is directing our nation's political changes inresponse
to 9/11. And it's making trade-offs from its own subjectiveperspective: trade-offs that benefit it even if they are to thedetriment
of others.
From the point of view of the DOJ, judicial oversight is unnecessaryand unwarranted; doing away with it is a better trade-off. They
thinkcollecting information on everyone is a good idea, because they areless concerned with the loss of privacy and liberty. Expensivesurveillance
and data mining systems are a good trade-off for thembecause more budget means even more power. And from theirperspective, secrecy
is better than openness; if the police areabsolutely trustworthy, then there's nothing to be gained from apublic process.
If you put the police in charge of security, the trade-offs they makeresult in measures that resemble a police state.
This is wrong. The trade-offs are larger than the FBI or the DOJ.
Just as a company would never put a single department in charge of itsown budget, someone above the narrow perspective of the DOJ
needs tobe balancing the country's needs and making decisions about thesesecurity trade-offs.
The laws limiting police power were put in place to protect us frompolice abuse. Privacy protects us from threats by government,
corporations, and individuals. And the greatest strength of ournation comes from our freedoms, our openness, our liberties, and oursystem
of justice. Ben Franklin once said: "Those who would give upessential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty norsafety."
Since 9/11 Americans have squandered an enormous amount ofliberty, and we didn't even get any temporary safety in return.
[Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, Inc., andthe author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security
in anUncertain World."]
http://www.schneier.com/
[6] News in Brief
PA SUPREME COURT: INTERNET USERS CONSENT TO MONITORING
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that an individual usingthe Internet should reasonably expect that his communications aremonitored
by police. In Commonwealth v. Proetto, a man convicted ofsoliciting a teenage girl on the Internet argued that it was illegalfor
law enforcement officers to monitor his Internet communicationswithout a warrant. Though the court chose not to issue an opinion,
itruled in favor the police, finding that there is no reasonableexpectation of privacy on the Internet and that the police did notbreak
Pennsylvania's wiretap law when they monitored the man's onlinecommunications.
Lower court opinion in Commonwealth v. Proetto:
http://www.aopc.org/opposting/supreme/out/a44007_00.pdf
Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania:
http://www.aopc.org/opposting/supreme/out/j-169-2002pco.pdf
Concurring statement of Justice Newman:
http://www.aopc.org/opposting/supreme/out/j-169-2002cs.pdfREPS QUESTION WHETHER US-VISIT WILL STOP TERRORISTS
The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Infrastructure and BorderSecurity held a hearing Wednesday on US-VISIT, the government's
newprogram that tracks the travel of foreign nationals to and from theUnited States. Several members of the Subcommittee expressed
doubtabout US-VISIT's validity as a counterterrorism tool. However, AsaHutchinson, Undersecretary for the Department of Homeland
Security'sBorder and Transportation Security directorate, focused his testimonyon US-VISIT's law enforcement capablilities. Hutchinson
testifiedthat program has helped to apprehend "dozens of individuals whomatched various criminal databases," none of whom has any
apparentterrorist connection. "We have significantly increased our ability tocatch criminals," Hutchinson said.
Select Committee on Homeland Security's Media Advisory on the hearing:
http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=119
For more information about US-VISIT, see EPIC's US-VISIT Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visitIRS BACKS DOWN ON E-FILER TRACKING
The IRS has reversed a decision to place electronic flags on taxpayersusing the IRS "Free File" program after receiving numerous privacycomplaints
from consumers and private tax preparation companies. TheIRS had announced that it would require private tax preparationcompanies
to flag customers to evaluate the effectiveness of FreeFile. However, several software companies participating in Free Fileexpressed
privacy concerns, and one company left the programaltogether. The Free File program allows certain taxpayers in eligiblecategories
to file their taxes electronically for free through privatesoftware companies. A coalition of consumer groups, including EPIC,
has previously warned of misuse of consumer data by Free File taxpreparation companies.
IRS Free File Page:
http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html
EPIC's Letter to the Department of Treasury warning of misuse ofpersonal filing information by Free File companies is available at:
http://www.pirg.org/consumer/ral03march.pdf
For more information about taxpayer privacy, see EPIC's IRS Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/databases/irs/
EPIC URGES ATTORNEYS GENERAL TO SUPPORT ID THEFT VICTIMS
EPIC and over a dozen consumer protection organizations have sent aletter to State Attorneys General nationwide urging them to accept
IDtheft affidavits. Acceptance of the affidavits allows ID theftvictims to exercise important rights under the recently-amended
FairCredit Reporting Act. The amendments give ID theft victims theability to seek an extended, seven-year fraud alert and to blockinformation
in their credit file.
Coalition Letter on ID Theft Affidavits:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra/factagltr1.15.04.pdf
For more information about the Fair Credit Reporting Act, see EPIC'sFCRA Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra/
FTC: TELEMARKETERS MUST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES ON CALLER ID
Another requirement imposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruleestablishing the Do-Not-Call Registry takes effect today, astelemarketers
must identify themselves to consumers with Caller ID.
The FTC now requires telemarketers to display the name of the companymaking the sale or the firm placing the call. Telemarketers
must alsodisplay a phone number which individuals may call to request that thecompany or firm not call again.
The National Do-Not-Call Registry:
http://www.donotcall.gov
For more information on the Do-Not-Call Registry, see EPIC'sDo-Not-Call Registry Page:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/dnc/
TASK FORCE TO EXAMINE NEW INTERNET PROTOCOL VERSION
A task force established by the Secretary of Commerce will considerthe implications of deploying Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
inthe United States. The Internet Protocol (IP) is a technical standardthat allows computers and other devices to communicate with
each otherover networks, many of which connect to form the Internet. Byproviding a common format for the transmission of information
acrossthe Internet, IP facilitates communication among a variety ofdifferent networks and devices. The public is invited to comment
onvariety of IPv6-related issues including: (1) the benefits andpossible uses of IPv6; (2) current domestic and internationalconditions
regarding the deployment of IPv6; (3) economic, technicaland other barriers to deployment of IPv6; and (4) the appropriate rolefor
the U.S. government in the deployment of IPv6.
For more information on IPv6 and how to submit comments, see theDepartment of Commerce's Federal Register Notice:
http://www.epic.org/redirect/ipv6.html
[7] EPIC Bookstore: The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003
JUST PUBLISHED!
Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003560 pages, $40.00
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2003/
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook belongs front and center on the desk of every Information Age lawyer. It provides an indispensable
map to the maze that is modern privacy law."
- Prof. Paul M. Schwartz, Brooklyn Law School
The Privacy Law Sourcebook is the leading resource for students,
attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in privacy law inthe United States and around the world. It includes the full
text ofmajor privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit ReportingAct, Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, Family EducationalRights and Privacy Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act, PrivacyProtection Act, Cable Communications Policy Act,
ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, OECD PrivacyGuidelines, OECD Cryptography Guidelines, and European
Union DataDirective for Data Protection and Commerce.
The Privacy Law Sourcebook is updated and expanded for 2003. Newmaterials include the privacy provisions of the Homeland Security
Actand the E-Government Act, the European Commission statement on airpassenger record transfers, and reports on video surveillance,
biometrics, the Internet WHOIS directories, and radio frequencyidentification. Also included is an extensive section on privacyresources
with useful Web sites and contact information for privacyagencies, organizations, and publications.
EPIC Publications:
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2003: United States Law, InternationalLaw, and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2003).
Price: $40. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2003/
The "Physicians Desk Reference of the privacy world." An invaluableresource for students, attorneys, researchers and journalists
who needan up-to-date collection of U.S. and International privacy law, aswell as a comprehensive listing of privacy resources.
"FOIA 2002: Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws," HarryHammitt, David Sobel and Mark Zaid, editors (EPIC 2002). Price:
$40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/foia2002/
This is the standard reference work covering all aspects of theFreedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in theSunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 21stedition fully updates the manual
that lawyers, journalists andresearchers have relied on for more than 25 years. For those wholitigate open government cases (or
need to learn how to litigatethem), this is an essential reference manual.
"Privacy & Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Lawsand Developments" (EPIC 2002). Price: $35.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/phr2003/
This survey, by EPIC and Privacy International, reviews the state ofprivacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. The surveyexamines
a wide range of privacy issues including data protection,
passenger profiling, genetic databases, video surveillance, ID systemsand freedom of information laws.
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet ContentControls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0/
A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet contentfiltering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filteringthreatens
free expression.
"The Consumer Law Sourcebook 2000: Electronic Commerce and the GlobalEconomy," Sarah Andrews, editor (EPIC 2000). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/cls/
The Consumer Law Sourcebook provides a basic set of materials forconsumers, policy makers, practitioners and researchers who areinterested
in the emerging field of electronic commerce. The focus ison framework legislation that articulates basic rights for consumersand
the basic responsibilities for businesses in the online economy.
"Cryptography and Liberty 2000: An International Survey of EncryptionPolicy," Wayne Madsen and David Banisar, authors (EPIC 2000).
Price:
$20. http://www.epic.org/bookstore/crypto00&/
EPIC's third survey of encryption policies around the world. Theresults indicate that the efforts to reduce export controls on strongencryption
products have largely succeeded, although severalgovernments are gaining new powers to combat the perceived threats ofencryption
to law enforcement.
EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, freeexpression, 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
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
WHOLES - A Multiple View of Individual Privacy in a Networked World.
Swedish Institute of Computer Science. January 30-31, 2004.
Stockholm, Sweden. For more information:
http://www.sics.se/privacy/wholes2004.
Fear: Its Political Uses And Abuses, featuring Vice President Al Goreas Keynote Speaker. Social Research Journal. February 5-7,
2003.
New York, New York. For more information: http://www.socres.org/fear.
The New Fair Credit Reporting Act. Privacy & American Business.
February 9-10, 2004. Washington, DC. Email infopandab.org.
O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference. February 9-12, 2004. SanDiego, CA. For more information:
http://conferences.oreilly.com/etech.
Living with the New Private Sector - Privacy Law: What YourOrganization Needs to Know, a One Day Seminar and Training Session.
Riley Information Services Inc. February 16, 2004. Ottawa, Canada.
For more information: http://www.rileyis.com/seminars/index.html.
Antiterrorism and the Security Agenda: Impacts on Rights, Freedoms,
and Democracy. International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.
February 17, 2004. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Emailpublicforumiclmg.ca.
SPAM Technology Workshop. Computer Security Resource Center.
February 17, 2004. Gaithersburg, MD. For more information:
http://csrc.nist.gov/spam.
IAPP 4th Annual Privacy & Security Summit & Expo. February 18-20,
2004. Washington, DC. For more information:
http://www.privacyassociation.org/html/conferences.html.
Free Seminar on Electronic Advocacy for Nonprofits. Confluence.
February 18, 2004. Washington, DC. E-mail infoconfluencecorp.com.
RSA Conference 2004 - The Art of Information Security. February23-27, 2004. San Francisco, CA. For more information:
http://www.rsaconference.com.
Third Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records.
Courtroom 21 Project. February 27-28, 2004. Williamsburg, VA. Formore information: http://www.courtroom21.net.
PKC 2004: International Workshop on Practice and Theory in Public KeyCryptography. Institute for Infocomm Research. March 1-4, 2004.
Sentosa, Singapore. For more information: http://pkc2004.lit.org.sg.
A Summit on Healthcare Privacy and Data Security: HIPAA and Beyond.
Health Care Conference Administrators. March 7-9, 2004. Baltimore,
MD. For more information: http://www.hipaasummit.com.
Securing Privacy in the Internet Age. Stanford Law School. March13-14, 2004. Palo Alto, CA. For more information:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/privacysymposium.
Sixth Annual National Freedom of Information Day Conference. FirstAmendment Center, in cooperation with the American LibraryAssociation.
March 16, 2004. Arlington, VA. E-mailfoidayconferencefreedomforum.org.
CFP2004: 14th Annual Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). April 20-23, 2004.
Berkeley, CA. For more information: http://www.cfp2004.org.
2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IIEEE Computer SocietyTechnical Committee on Security and Privacy, in cooperation with
theInternational Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR). May 9-12,
2004. Oakland, CA. For more information:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/oakland04-cfp.html.
International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in a GlobalSociety. Wessex Institute. May 11-13, 2004. Skiathos, Greece.
Formore information:
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2004/datasecurity04/index.html.
The Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security.
University of Minnesota Digital Technology Center. May 13-14, 2004.
Minneapolis, MN. For more information:
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/weis2004.
Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. University of Toronto.
May 26-28, 2004. Toronto, Canada. For more information:
http://petworkshop.org/2004.
Access & Privacy Conference 2004: Sorting It Out. Government Studies,
Faculty of Extension. June 10-11, 2004. University of Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. For more information:
http://www.govsource.net/programs/iapp/conference/main.nclk.
O'Reilly Open Source Convention. July 26-30, 2004. Portland, OR. Formore information: http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon.
First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam. American Association forArtificial Intelligence and IEEE Technical Committee on Security
andPrivacy. July 30-31, 2004. Mountain View, CA. For more information:
http://www.ceas.cc.
Crypto 2004: The Twenty-Fourth Annual IACR Crypto Conference.
International Association for Cryptologic Research, IEEE ComputerSociety Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the ComputerScience
Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara, CA. August 15-19, 2004. For more information:
http://www.iacr.org/conferences/crypto2004.
Subscription Information
Subscribe/unsubscribe via Web interface:
http://mailman.epic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/epic_news
Subscribe/unsubscribe via e-mail:
To: epic_news-requestmailman.epic.org
Subject: "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" (no quotes)
Automated help with subscribing/unsubscribing:
To: epic_news-requestmailman.epic.org
Subject: "help" (no quotes)
Problems or questions? e-mail <infoepic.org >
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 tosend notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or
share ourmailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legalprocess seeking access to our mailing list. We do
not enhance (linkto other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail addressfrom this list, please follow the above instructions under"subscription
information". Please contact infoepic.org if you wouldlike to change your subscription e-mail address, if you areexperiencing subscription/unsubscription problems, or if you
have anyother questions.
About EPIC
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interestresearch center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 tofocus
public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the ClipperChip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medicalrecord
privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.
EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Actlitigation, and conducts policy research. For more information,
e-mail infoepic.org, http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718Connecticut 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 PrivacyInformation Center, contributions are welcome and fullytax-deductible.
Checks should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you cancontribute
online at:
http://www.epic.org/donate/
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act andFirst Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for theright of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation
ofencryption and expanding wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
END EPIC Alert 11.02
.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICAlert/2004/2.html
