=======================================================================
                    E P I C   A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 20.10                                      May 31, 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Published by the
       Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
                   Washington, D.C.

  
   http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_20.10.html

            "Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
                 http://epic.org/donate


========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================

[1] Sen. Paul Introduces Bill on Fourth Amendment, '3rd Party Doctrine'  
[2] TSA 'Unplugs, Boxes Up, and Ships Back' X-Ray Body
Scanners
[3] EPIC Asks FTC to Investigate Snapchat  
[4] EPIC Testifies Before Colorado Board on Student Privacy 
[5] FTC Opens Investigation
into Google Advertising Dominance
[6] News in Brief 
[7] EPIC in the News 
[8] EPIC Book Review: 'Who Owns the Future?'
[9] Upcoming
Conferences and Events


TAKE ACTION:  Comment on the TSA's 'Nude' Airport Body Scanners! 
- COMMENTS to the TSA:  http://www.epic.org/redirect/TSAcomment/
- LEARN More:  http://epic.org/TSAcomment/
- SUPPORT EPIC:  http://www.epic.org/donate/


REGISTER NOW: EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner
               June 3, 2013, Washington DC 
                        with

              Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
               Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
               Pulitzer Prize Winner Martha Mendoza
               Consumer Advocate Susan Grant
               Privacy Scholar and Advocate David Flaherty
                        
        
               http://www.epic.org/june3/


========================================================================
[1] Sen. Paul Introduces Bill on Fourth Amendment, '3rd
Party Doctrine'
========================================================================

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced
the "Fourth Amendment 
Preservation and Protection Act of 2013," which would prohibit the 
warrantless collection of third-party
information about individuals. 
The bill overturns the "third party doctrine," which eliminates any 
Fourth Amendment protections
to information given over to third 
parties, and which has been widely criticized by courts and legal 
scholars. 

"In today's high-tech
world, we must ensure that all forms of 
communication are protected. Yet government has eroded protecting 
the Fourth Amendment
over the past few decades, especially when 
applied to electronic communications and third party providers," Sen. 
Paul said. "Congress
has passed a variety of laws that decimate our 
Fourth Amendment protections. In effect, it means that Americans can 
only count
on Fourth Amendment protections if they don't use e-mail, 
cell phones, the Internet, credit cards, libraries, banks, or other 
forms
of modern finance and communications."

Senator Paul's bill is another example of his recent focus on 
supporting greater privacy
protections in the US. Sen. Paul 
recently introduced legislation to protect Americans against 
unwarranted domestic drone surveillance.
Because of his promotion of 
greater privacy protections, Paul will receive a 2013 EPIC Champion of 
Freedom Award on June 3.

EPIC
supports greater privacy protections for information held by 
third parties, including location information. The New Jersey Supreme

Court recently considered whether law enforcement may request cell-site 
location information without a warrant under the Stored
Communications 
Act. EPIC filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in the case, State v. 
Earls, arguing that users have a reasonable
expectation of privacy with
respect to their location data, and that probable cause is necessary to 
obtain cell-site location information.

The US Supreme Court also considered the status of location information 
in US v. Jones, specifically whether the warrantless attachment
and use 
of a GPS tracking device on the petitioner's vehicle was a violation of 
the Fourth Amendment. EPIC's "Friend of the Court"
brief argued that 
the police must obtain a warrant prior to attaching and monitoring a 
GPS tracking unit. Writing in concurrence
with the Court's decision, 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the third party doctrine was "ill 
suited for the digital age."


Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013 (May 23, 2013)
    http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1037

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):  Press Release on Bill (May 23, 2013)
    http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=821

Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013 (Mar. 2013)
    http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/972

EPIC:  Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner (June 3)
    http://epic.org/june3/

EPIC:  In re Historic Cell-Site Location Information
    http://epic.org/amicus/location/cell-phone-tracking/

EPIC:  Locational Privacy
    http://epic.org/privacy/location

EPIC:  UAVs and Drones
    http://epic.org/privacy/drones

EPIC:  State of New Jersey v Earls
    http://epic.org/amicus/location/earls/

EPIC:  US v. Jones
    http://epic.org/amicus/jones/

EPIC:  Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/


========================================================================
[2] TSA 'Unplugs, Boxes Up, and Ships Back' X-Ray Body
Scanners
========================================================================

The Transportation Security Administration has
completed removal of all 
backscatter x-ray body scanners from US airports. Backscatter machines 
reveal detailed images of a passengers's
naked body as they go through
airport security, and have been described as "digital strip searches." 
They have also received criticism
because of their radiation output, 
and many experts have questioned whether they are even effective in
detecting threats. The backscatter
machines are being replaced with 
millimeter-wave scanners, a less intrusive but still controversial 
scanning technology. 

The
TSA's removal of the x-ray body scanners began in the fall of 2012 
as a result of a Congressional edict and several lawsuits by
EPIC. The
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandated that all body 
scanners be equipped with privacy-enhancing software by
June 1, 2012. 
After granting itself a one-year extension, the TSA terminated a 
contract with backscatter x-ray manufacturer Rapiscan
once the agency 
determined that privacy-enhancing software could not be added to meet 
the Congressional deadline.

In the case
EPIC v. TSA, EPIC brought a Freedom of Information Act 
lawsuit against the agency and requested that a Washington, DC federal 
court order the TSA to make a decision on the FOIA requests
and produce 
all the documents that fell within the scope of those requests. EPIC's 
FOIA requests revealed that the body scanner
devices could store and 
record images of naked air travelers. EPIC and a coalition of privacy
organizations subsequently petitioned
Secretary Napolitano to 
suspend further deployment of the devices and provide the public
with an opportunity to comment. When the
Secretary failed to begin
a public comment process, EPIC sued the DHS.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July 2011 in EPIC
v. DHS 
that air travelers have a right to opt-out of the body-scanner 
screening and that the TSA must undertake a public notice
and comment 
rulemaking on the agency's airport screening procedures. Public comment 
forms are available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004
through June 
24, 2013.


CNN:  Article on Body Scanner Removal (May 30, 2013)
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/travel/tsa-backscatter/index.html

US Congress:  FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Feb. 1, 2012)
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf

Public Rulemaking:  Passenger Screening Using AIT
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004

EPIC:  Comment on the TSA Nude Body Scanner Proposal
    http://epic.org/TSAcomment/

EPIC:  Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners 
    http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ 

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
    http://epic.org/redirect/030113-epic-v-dhs-scan-suspension.html

EPIC:  EPIC v. TSA - Body Scanner Modifications (ATR)
    http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_tsa.html


========================================================================
[3] EPIC Asks FTC to Investigate Snapchat  
========================================================================

EPIC has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against 
the makers of Snapchat, a mobile app that claims to allow
users to take 
photos and videos that will self-destruct permanently after the 
recipient views them.  

Snapchat's website states
that users can make photos and videos 
"disappear forever." In fact, Snapchat recipients can retrieve photos 
and videos after they
should have vanished. The app does not wipe 
messages from users' phones; rather, forensic software can be used to 
extract the supposedly
deleted messages from deep within the phone's 
memory. According to EPIC's complaint, files are not deleted; rather, 
their extensions
are changed to .NOMEDIA, and "[b]y removing the 
.NOMEDIA extension, the pictures become viewable again."

EPIC calls on the FTC
to investigate Snapchat for "unfair and 
deceptive" trade practices. The FTC encourages companies to incorporate 
"privacy by design"
into their software, including the use of Privacy 
Enhancing Techniques, i.e., "methods that minimize or eliminate the 
collection
of personally identifiable information." The FTC similarly 
described Privacy Enhancing Techniques in a 2012 privacy report. 

In
2008, EPIC filed a complaint at the FTC against ask.com's AskEraser, 
a search engine add-on that claimed to delete search history.
AskEraser 
did not meet the privacy protection claims it offered to users, falsely 
representing that search queries would be deleted,
when in fact they 
were retained by the company and made available to law enforcement 
agencies. 


EPIC:  Complaint to FTC re: Snapchat
(May 16, 2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/EPIC-Snapchat-Complaint.pdf

FTC:  Report on Consumer Privacy (Mar. 26, 2013)
    http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/03/120326privacyreport.pdf

EPIC:  Does AskEraser Really Erase?
    http://epic.org/privacy/ask

EPIC:  Complaint to FTC re: AskEraser (Jan. 18, 2008)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ask/

EPIC:   Federal Trade Commission
    http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/


========================================================================
[4] EPIC Testifies Before Colorado Board on Student Privacy

========================================================================

EPIC Administrative Law Counsel Khaliah Barnes testified
May 16 before t
he Colorado State Board of Education on privacy issues related to the 
inBloom student information database and other
companies that acquire 
student information. 

According to the inBloom website, the product is designed to help 
teachers and schools
"simplify how they record student information, 
administer tests, analyze performance, train teachers, and share 
lesson plans to
support personalized learning." inBloom supports this 
"personalization" by storing student data, some of which is typical 
for schools
to collect, such as test scores, attendance records, and 
credit requirements. However, inBloom is also equipped to collect other

data sets, including "students that are tagged for interventions or 
. . . for the purposes of tracking or analysis, such as a principal

watch list" and "actions or behaviors that constitute an 'offense' in 
violation of laws, rules, policies, or norms of behavior."

In response to public outcry over the initial launch of inBloom, the 
Colorado State Board of Education hosted a study session to
gain 
additional information on the database. Participants included EPIC and 
representatives from inBloom, the Colorado Attorney
General's Office, 
and a local school district. EPIC's Barnes explained that several of 
the tracking categories posed privacy threats
to the students' futures; 
for example, the inBloom database asks teachers to identify students 
who have been the "perpetrators"
or "accomplices" in incidents of rule 
violations. EPIC pointed out that, unless a criminal act took place, 
"schools should be reluctant
to label K-12 students using criminal 
terminology in an electronic database. This is because these records 
could be used later
in life for employment and postsecondary school 
decisions."

EPIC also recommended that Colorado take steps to ensure the security

of student data within the inBloom database, and to facilitate student 
and parent access to that data. EPIC specifically recommended
that 
Colorado's agreement with inBloom and similar companies should "set out 
the obligations of confidentiality, require physical
and access 
security, define the duration of data storage," and "specify the 
standards to be applied for each of these obligations."
Additionally, 
Colorado should limit data collection and transfer to inBloom only 
"necessary information," provide parents and students
with access to 
any agreements with inBloom and other private education technology 
services, and ensure that students and parents
have access to the 
educational records maintained by third party providers as well as the 
ability to limit disclosure to third
parties. 

EPIC sued the US Education Department in 2012 for issuing regulations 
amending the Family and Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974 
(FERPA). The Department's 2011 proposed regulations reinterpreted 
statutorily defined terminology and removed
limitations prohibiting 
educational institutions from disclosing students' Personally 
Identifiable Information without first obtaining
student or parental 
consent. EPIC's subsequently filed comments noted the illegality of 
the agency's amendments, including the
reinterpretation of the 
statutory terms "authorized representative," "education program," and 
"directory information." When the
Education Department enacted the 
regulations without modification, EPIC's lawsuit argued that the 
agency's regulations exceeded
the agency's statutory authority, and 
were contrary to law. 


EPIC:  Testimony Before the CO Ed. Board re: inBloom (May 16, 2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/student/EPIC-Stmnt-CO-Study-5-13.pdf

EPIC:  EPIC v. Department of Education (Feb. 29, 2012)
    http://epic.org/open_gov/apa/EPIC-FERPA-Complaint.pdf

Colorado State Board of Education:  Meeting Agendas
    http://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/Public

EPIC:  EPIC v. US Department of Education
    http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/default.html

EPIC:  Student Privacy
    http://epic.org/privacy/student/
 

========================================================================
[5] FTC Opens Investigation into Google Advertising Dominance
========================================================================

The Federal Trade Commission reportedly has opened a new
antitrust 
investigation into Google's display advertising business. The 
Commission is investigating whether Google's dominant position
in the 
display advertising market following the company's 2008 acquisition of 
DoubleClick deliberately harms competition. DoubleClick
was a major 
Internet advertising service that helped large companies match banner 
ads to targeted audiences. 

EPIC opposed Google's
2007 acquisition of DoubleClick, which the FTC 
approved over the objections of former Commissioner Pamela Jones 
Harbour. In testimony
before the US Senate Antitrust Committee, EPIC 
stated, "[T]he merger of the Internet's largest search company and the 
Internet's
largest advertising [company poses] a unique and substantial 
threat to the privacy interests of Internet users around the globe."


Numerous EPIC complaints to the FTC have pushed the agency to sanction 
Google on several occasions for violating user privacy,
deceiving users 
about Google's practices, and misusing private data. In 2012, the FTC 
fined Google $22.5 million, and Attorneys
General for 38 states and the 
District of Columbia settled with Google for $7 million over privacy 
violations in Google's Street
View program. The Federal Communications 
Commission fined Google for obstructing the agency's own investigation 
of Street View.


The European Union is currently investigating both Google's search 
business and the company's Motorola Mobility subsidiary for
potentially 
illegal monopolistic practices.


LA Times:  Article on FTC Antitrust Probe of Google (May 24, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/053113-latimes-ftc-google.html

EPIC:  Google/DoubleClick Merger 
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/default.html

EPIC:  US Senate Testimony on Google/DoubleClick Merger (Sep. 27, 2007)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/epic_test_092707.pdf

FTC:  Dissent of Harbour on Google/Doubleclick Merger (Dec. 20, 2007)
    http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0710170/071220harbour.pdf

EPIC:  EPIC v. FTC (Enforcement of Google Consent Order)     
   http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/consent-order.html 

EPIC:  In re Google Buzz
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/googlebuzz/

AG of CT et al.:  Settlement with Google re: Street View (Mar. 12, 2013)
    http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518&A=2341

EPIC:  FCC Investigation of Google Street View
    http://epic.org/privacy/google/fcc_investigation_of_google_st.html

CNIL:  Press Release on EU-Google Investigation (Apr. 2, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/041613-cnil-release-google.html

EPIC:  Federal Trade Commission
    http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/


========================================================================
[6] News in Brief
========================================================================

Texas Governor to Sign Bill Requiring Warrants for Email Searches 

The Texas legislature has passed H.B. No. 2268, a bill that
creates a 
warrant requirement for law-enforcement access to stored electronic 
communications and customer data. The law, which
was presented to Gov. 
Rick Perry May 28, is the first successful state effort to establish 
an across-the-board warrant requirement
for stored communications. The 
US Congress is considering similar changes to the federal Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act.
Other members of Congress have proposed 
more sweeping privacy reforms, and bills in both the House and Senate 
would establish locational
privacy protections. Earlier in 2013, EPIC 
testified before the Texas Legislature on H.B. 1608, a locational 
privacy companion
bill to H.B. 2268. 


TX State Legislature:  Text of H.B. No. 2268 (May 28, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/053113-TX-HB-2268.html

US Congress:  ECPA Amendments Act of 2013 (Mar. 19, 2013)
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s607is/pdf/BILLS-113s607is.pdf

US Congress:  SB 1037 (Fourth Amendment Rights) (May 23, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/053113-US-SB-1037.html

US House:  "Online Comm. and Geolocation Prot. Act" (Mar. 6, 2013)
   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.983: 

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Text of "GPS Act of 2013" (2013)  
    http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/gps-act-of-2013-bill-text

EPIC:  Locational Privacy
    http://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/

EPIC:  Testimony Before TX Legislature re: HB 1608 (Mar. 26, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/053113-EPIC-TX-location-testimony.html

EPIC:  Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/



Pew Survey Finds Teens Using Privacy Controls on Social Media  

A survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project and Harvard

University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society has found that 
while teens are disclosing more personal information on social
media, 
the majority actively protects their privacy. Sixty percent of teen 
Facebook users keep their profiles private and visible
only to a select 
group of friends, and 56% felt confident in their ability to manage 
Facebook's privacy settings. Most teens also
reported deleting or 
blocking users on social media sites, or obscuring the content of their 
messages via inside or coded references.
Other recent polls by Pew 
have found that a majority of parents were concerned about their 
children's online privacy, and that
users were becoming more active in 
managing their social media accounts. 


Pew Internet/Berkman Center:  Teen Social Media Survey
(May 21, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/053113-pew-teen-social-media.html

Pew Internet:  "Parents, Teens, and Internet Privacy" (Nov. 20, 2012)
    http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-Privacy.aspx

Pew Internet:  "Privacy management on social media sites" (Feb. 2012)
    http://epic.org/redirect/053113-pew-privacy-management.html

EPIC:  Public Opinion on Privacy
    http://epic.org/privacy/survey/

EPIC:  Facebook Privacy
    http://epic.org/privacy/facebook
    
EPIC:  Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
    http://epic.org/privacy/kids/


Congress Seeks Answers on Google Glass Privacy Risks

Members of the bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus have sent a 
letter
to Google seeking answers to questions about Glass, a wearable 
computer that can record video and audio, gather locational data,
and 
possibly perform facial recognition. The Caucus's questions included 
whether Google "plans to prevent Google Glass from unintentionally

collecting data about the user/non-user without consent" and whether 
Glass would be able to use facial recognition technology.
Earlier in 
2013, Attorneys General for 38 states and the District of Columbia 
reached a $7 million settlement with Google over
the unauthorized 
collection of data from wireless networks, including private WiFi 
networks of residential Internet users. In early
2012, Google 
collapsed company privacy policies, prompting objections from EPIC, 
state attorneys general, members of Congress,
and IT managers in the 
government and private sectors. 


Cong. Privacy Caucus:  Letter to Google re: Glass (May 16, 2013)
    http://joebarton.house.gov/images/GoogleGlassLtr_051613.pdf

State AGs:  Settlement re: WiFi Data Collection (Mar. 11, 2013)
    http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518&A=2341

NAAG:  Letter to Google re: Privacy Policy Changes (Feb. 22, 2012)
   http://epic.org/redirect/041613-naag-letter-google.html

Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus:  Letter to FTC re: Google (Feb. 17, 2012)
    http://epic.org/redirect/041613-house-letter-google.html

SafeGov:  Blog Post on Google Policy Changes (Jan. 25, 2012)
    http://epic.org/redirect/022912-safegov-google-post.html

EPIC:  EPIC v. FTC (Enforcement of the Google Consent Order)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/consent-order.html

EPIC:  Google Glass and Wearable Computers
    http://epic.org/privacy/google/glass/default.html


========================================================================
[7] EPIC in the News
========================================================================

"Startups Sell Privacy in a Facebook-Dominated Social World." Bloomberg
BusinessWeek, May 31, 2013.
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-31/startups-sell-privacy-
    in-a-facebook-dominated-social-world

"All Backscatter Body Scanners Officially Removed From Airports."
SmarterTravel.com, May 31, 2013.
    http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/today-in-travel/all-backscatter-
    body-scanners-officially-removed-from-airports.html?id=15035728

"Who's tracking your children?" The Washington Examiner, May 30, 2013.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/michelle-malkin-whos-tracking-your-
    children/article/2530873

"Privacy a looming issue as drone regulation loosens." Yahoo News, May
30, 2013.
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/privacy-looming-issue-drone-
    regulation-loosens-111425343.html

"TSA removes body scanners criticized as too revealing." CNN, May 
29, 2013.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/29/travel/tsa-backscatter/index.html?
    hpt=tr_c2

"How Private are Your Medical Records?" Fox News (Video), May 20, 2013.
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/videos#p/157870/v/
    2397321883001
    
"Snapchat Doesn't Delete Photos As Promised, EPIC Tells FTC." Law360,
May 20, 2013.
    http://www.law360.com/technology/articles/442856/snapchat-doesn-t-
    delete-photos-as-promised-epic-tells-ftc
    
"New Yorker's Strongbox: Can it shield anonymous sources?" CBS News,
May 18, 2013.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57585102/new-yorkers-
    strongbox-can-it-shield-anonymous-sources/
    
"Don't want to be tracked? Turn cellphone off, says magistrate." NBC
News, May 17, 2013.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/dont-want-be-tracked-turn-
    cellphone-says-magistrate-1C9954245
    
"Privacy watchdog EPIC files complaint against Snapchat with FTC."
Los Angeles Times, May 17, 2013.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-privacy-
    watchdog-epic-files-complaint-against-snapchat-with-ftc-20130517,
    0,3618395.story    
    
"Data fears aired before State Board." EdNews Colorado, May 16, 2013.
    http://www.ednewscolorado.org/news/education-news/data-fears-aired-
    before-state-board
 
 "Meet Stingrays, The Surveillance Tech The Government Doesn't Want To 
 Talk About." Think Progress, May 17, 2013.
     http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2013121/meet-
     stingrays-the-surveillance-tech-the-government-doesnt-want-to-
 
 
For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html


========================================================================
[8] Book Review:  'Who Owns the Future?'
========================================================================


"Who Owns the Future?," Jaron Lanier

http://epic.org/redirect/053113-who-owns-the-future-lanier.html

Computer science pioneer, musician, and futurist Jaron Lanier's new 
book lays out a provocative perspective on the current information

economy, how it's leading us to disaster, and a potential better path. 

According to Lanier, the root of society's IT problem lies
in what 
Lanier calls "Siren Servers" - computers that gather data from the 
network, often without cost, to use and analyze for
their owners' 
benefit. "Siren Servers" are found in social networks, search engines, 
and the insurance industry and financial industries;
for example, 
Facebook and Google are both Siren Servers because they offer free 
services so they can freely collect your information
in order to sell 
advertising. Meanwhile, both companies are lauded as the great successes 
of the information economy.

Lanier argues
against the common belief that the information economy 
provides plenty of opportunity for growth. He argues that relentless 
corporate
spying and lack of compensation for individuals' data only 
will concentrate wealth and power in new and unsustainable ways and 
leave society bereft of opportunities to sustain a robust middle class. 
Lanier's convincing argument provides examples ranging from
the 
financial industry's overleveraged mortgages to Amazon's monitoring of 
book prices to demonstrate how Siren Servers' concentration
of 
information allows for concentrated wealth while creating personal risk 
for everyone else.

The middle of "Who Owns the Future?"
grows a little meandering as it 
adds nuances of understanding to Lanier's thesis. Once you understand 
the problem as described
by Lanier, you yearn to get to his proposed 
solution in the hope that it will be as interestingly provocative as 
the problem. Lanier
does not disappoint: The solution is, in fact, as 
fascinating and scary as uncharted territory tends to be, and raises 
an entire
set potential problems that must be weighed against current 
issues.

Specifically, Lanier argues that in order to counter the Siren
Servers, 
people who are spied on and consequently provide information for them - 
and that means nearly all of us - should be full
economic participants 
in the information economy: In other words, you should be compensated 
for your information. As Lanier pointedly
observes, "your lack of 
privacy is someone else's wealth."

Overall, Lanier's vision of a better path is not the a panacea but an

important first step in turning a critical eye towards our current 
information economy and assessing whether a better path is feasible.

"Who Owns the Future?" is an amazingly thought-provoking piece that 
should leave readers questioning whether the all the "free"
services 
online are really worth it.


--Jeramie D. Scott

================================
EPIC Publications:

"Litigation Under
the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark
S. Zaid
(EPIC 2010). Price: $75.

http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/

Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most
comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access
laws.
This updated version includes new material regarding President Obama's
2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's
March 2009 memo
on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The
standard reference work includes in-depth
analysis of litigation under:
the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated
2010 volume is the
25th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists
and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.

================================

"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel J.
Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005).
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, spyware, 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
2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75.

http://www.epic.org/phr06/

This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an
overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy
in over
75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections,
new challenges, and important issues and events relating
to privacy.
Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy
and data protection ever published.

================================

"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.

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, and constitutional values can be ordered at:

EPIC Bookstore http://www.epic.org/bookstore

================================

EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of
interesting documents obtained
from government agencies under the
Freedom of Information Act.

Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:
http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes

=======================================================================
[9] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================

EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner. 3 June 2013, Washington, DC. 
For More Information:  http://epic.org/june3.

2013 Health Privacy Summit, 5-6 June 2013, Washington, DC. For More
Information:  http://www.healthprivacysummit.org/events/2013-health-
privacy-summit/event-summary-1bfa9be80d364092aeed1a8803377fa8.aspx.

22nd Annual Computers, Freedom, & Privacy Conference. 25-26 June 2013,
Washington, DC. For More Information:  Contact Chris Calabrese
at
ccalabrese@dcaclu.org.

=======================================================================
Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter
=======================================================================

Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter:

http://facebook.com/epicprivacy

http://epic.org/facebook

http://twitter.com/epicprivacy

Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET.

Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts. Stay up to
date with EPIC's events. Support EPIC.

=======================================================================
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).

=======================================================================
Donate to EPIC
=======================================================================

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 and private-sector
infringement on constitutional values.

Thank you for your support.

=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================

Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
http://mailman.epic.org/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.


------------------------- END EPIC Alert 20.10------------------------