=======================================================================
                    E P I C   A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 20.23                                         November 27, 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  
   http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_20.23.html

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


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

[1] Supreme Court Declines EPIC's Challenge to NSA Surveillance Program
[2] States Reach $17M Settlement with Google Over Privacy
Violations
[3] Federal Court Awards EPIC $30,000 in Social Media Monitoring Case
[4] EPIC Urges FCC to Investigate AT&T's Sale of
Consumer Phone Records
[5] Government Audit Finds TSA Behavior Analysis Program 'Ineffective'
[6] News in Brief 
[7] EPIC in the
News 
[8] EPIC Book Review: 'Hatching Twitter'
[9] Upcoming Conferences and Events


TAKE ACTION:  Tell Facebook: "Stop Changing
Our Privacy Settings!"
- READ about the Changes:  http://epic.org/redirect/090313-facebook.html
- LEARN More about Facebook Privacy:  http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/
- SUPPORT EPIC:  http://www.epic.org/donate/



=========================================================================
[1] Supreme Court Declines EPIC's Challenge to NSA Surveillance
Program
=========================================================================

The United States Supreme Court has, without comment,
declined to hear 
EPIC's petition challenging the legality of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court's order authorizing the
NSA telephone record 
collection program. EPIC's petition argued that the FISA court exceeded 
legal authority when it ordered Verizon
to turn over, on an ongoing 
basis, all domestic telephone call records to the National Security 
Agency. 

In response to the Supreme
Court decision, EPIC stated, "The 
surveillance order was clearly unlawful. There is simply no way to 
establish relevance for the
collection of all telephone records on all 
US telephone customers for an intelligence investigation." The Foreign 
Intelligence
Surveillance Act makes it very difficult to challenge 
these determinations, which is why EPIC filed its petition for 
appellate
review directly with the Supreme Court.

The petition was distributed to the Justices October 30, along with 
four "friend of the
court" briefs by former Church Committee members 
and prominent scholars in information law, federal jurisdiction, and 
constitutional
law, all of whom urged the Supreme Court to grant EPIC's 
petition.  EPIC's petition argued that it is "simply not possible that

every phone record in the possession of a telecommunications firm could 
be relevant to an authorized investigation." According
to EPIC, such an 
interpretation would "render meaningless" the "relevance" limitation 
Congress added to Section 215 of the USA
PATRIOT Act in 2006. 

Many members of Congress, including the original authors of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, agree that the government's
interpretation is contrary to 
legislative intent. The "friend of the court" briefs in support of 
EPIC's case similarly argued that
the government's position undermines 
the purposes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and threatens 
Fourth Amendment rights.
 The US Solicitor General's Office filed a 
brief in opposition to EPIC's petition on October 11, arguing that the 
Supreme Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. 

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representative James Sensenbrenner 
(R-WI) have introduced
the USA FREEDOM Act, which would end the bulk 
collection program and impose new transparency and oversight rules for 
the NSA and
the FISA Court. The American Civil Liberties Union and 
other organizations have also challenged the program at the district 
court
level, arguing that the NSA collection program violates the 
Constitution and the FISA. 
EPIC will continue to push for reform in this area.


US Supreme Court:  Denial of Cert in In re EPIC (Nov. 18, 2013)
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111813zor_7mi8.pdf

EPIC:  In re EPIC Petition to US Supreme Court (Jul. 8, 2013)
    http://epic.org/EPIC-FISC-Mandamus-Petition.pdf  

Order to Verizon re: Telephone Records (Apr. 23, 2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/Section-215-Order-to-Verizon.pdf  

EPIC:  In re EPIC - NSA Telephone Records Surveillance
    http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/  

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI):  Text of USA FREEDOM Act (Oct. 29, 2013)
    http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usafreedomact.pdf 

 
========================================================================
[2] States Reach $17M Settlement with Google Over Privacy
Violations
========================================================================

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler and
attorneys general in 36 
states and the District of Columbia have reached a $17 million 
settlement with Google over privacy violations.
The state of Maryland, 
which led the investigation during Gansler's 2012-2013 tenure as 
president of the National Association of
Attorneys General, will 
receive more than $1 million as a civil penalty and Google will be 
required to change its privacy practices.


According to the settlement, Google violated state consumer protection 
and privacy laws by placing advertising tracking cookies
via 
DoubleClick, a company now owned by Google, on Safari browsers despite 
telling users that it would honor the default Safari
privacy settings. 
The Federal Trade Commission fined Google $22.5 million in 2012 over 
similar practices that violated an earlier
settlement, itself a result 
of a 2010 complaint filed by EPIC. 

The settlement requires Google to:
" * Not deploy the type of code
used here to override a browser's 
    cookie blocking settings without the consumer's consent, unless it 
    is necessary to do
so in order to detect, prevent or otherwise 
    address fraud, security or technical issues.   
  * Not misrepresent or omit material
information to consumers about 
    how they can use any particular Google product, service or tool to 
    directly manage how Google
serves advertisements to their browsers. 
  * Improve the information it provides to consumers regarding cookies, 
    their purposes,
and how they can be managed by consumers using 
    Google's products or services and tools. 
  * Maintain systems designed to ensure
the expiration of the third-
    party cookies set on Safari Web browsers while their default 
    settings had been circumvented."

In 2007, EPIC objected to the Google-DoubleClick merger on privacy 
grounds and specifically warned that Google's use of DoubleClick

techniques would lead to impermissible tracking of Internet users. 
DoubleClick had earlier been subject to a series of class action

lawsuits and EPIC previously objected to the proposed Doubleclick 
settlement. 


Maryland AG Office:  Notice of Google Settlement
(Nov. 18, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/112713-ag-google-settlement.html

FTC:  Announcement of Google Safari Settlement (Aug. 9, 2013)
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/08/google.shtm	

NAAG:  Letter to Google re: Account Consolidation (Feb. 22, 2012)
    http://epic.org/redirect/070512-naag-google-letter.html

EPIC:  Internet Cookies
    http://epic.org/privacy/internet/cookies/


=========================================================================
[3] Federal Court Awards EPIC $30,000 in Social Media
Monitoring Case
=========================================================================

EPIC has prevailed in a fee dispute with
the Department of Homeland 
Security in an open-government case concerning the government's 
monitoring of social media. EPIC filed
a FOIA request after the agency 
announced plans to gather information from "online forums, blogs, 
public websites, and message
boards." After the DHS refused to produce 
documents, EPIC filed suit and obtained more than 500 pages describing 
the agency program.
When the agency subsequently moved to dismiss the 
case, a federal judge ruled that EPIC had "substantially prevailed." 

The court
noted that EPIC had complied with the "public benefit' factor 
by making a "contribution to the national conversation." Articles
about 
the documents and EPIC's FOIA work were mentioned in numerous 
publications, including The Washington Post, FoxNews, Reuters,
The 
Blaze, ComputerWorld, IEEE Spectrum, and Forbes. The court also noted 
that these documents were "heavily featured" at a Congressional
hearing 
and that "this is the sort of public benefit that FOIA was designed to 
promote."

Earlier, DHS sought to give EPIC a token
amount in settlement for what 
DHS called "a 9-page boilerplate complaint for this simple, 
straightforward FOIA case." The court
had harsh words for the agency, 
emphasizing that "If FOIA's statutory requirements as applied to this 
case were so 'simple' and
'straightforward', DHS might have been better 
served by complying with them--rather than by ignoring statutory 
deadlines and meeting
their legal obligations only upon being served 
with a complaint in federal court." 

The case is EPIC v. DHS, No. 11-2261 (D.D.C.
Nov. 15, 2013). 


EPIC:  Resolution in Fee Dispute with DHS (Nov. 15, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/112713-dhs-fee-resolution.html

Washington Post:  Article on Social Media Monitoring (Jan. 13, 2012)
    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-13/world/35441734_1_
    social-media-dhs-documents-reports 

Fox News:  Article on Social Media Monitoring (Dec. 24, 2011)
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/24/privacy-group-sues-dhs-
    over-social-media-monitoring-program/ 

Reuters:  Article on Social Media Monitoring (Jan. 11, 2012)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-usa-homelandsecurity-
    websites-idUSTRE80A1RC20120111 

The Blaze:  Article on Social Media Monitoring (Dec. 28, 2011)
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/28/which-keywords-on-
    twitter-get-the-governments-attention/ 

ComputerWorld: Article on Social Media Monitoring (Jan. 16, 2012)
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223441/DHS_media_monitoring_
    could_chill_public_dissent_EPIC_warns 

IEEE Spectrum:  Article on Social Media Monitoring (May 29, 2012)
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/internet/do-you-need-
    to-be-careful-about-the-words-you-use-in-social-media-
    conversations 

Forbes:  Article on Social Media Monitoring (May 26, 2012)
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/05/26/department-of-
    homeland-security-forced-to-release-list-of-keywords-used-to-
    monitor-social-networking-sites/ 

US House:  Hearing on Social Media Monitoring (Feb. 16, 2012)
    http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-dhs-
    monitoring-social-networking-and-media-enhancing-intelligence

EPIC:  EPIC v. DHS Social Media Monitoring
    http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/ 


=========================================================================
[4] EPIC Urges FCC to Investigate AT&T's Sale of Consumer
Phone Records
=========================================================================

In a letter to Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Tom Wheeler, 
EPIC urged the FCC to determine whether AT&T violated the 
Communications Act when it sold private consumer
call detail 
information to the Drug Enforcement Administration and Central 
Intelligence Agency. The letter follows EPIC's previous
efforts to 
obtain the FCC's view on whether Verizon violated the Communications 
Act when it released consumer call detail information
to the National 
Security Agency.

The letter was prompted in part by two New York Times reports. One, 
released in September 2013,
found that AT&T had disclosed private 
information to federal and local law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies. The report discusses
the Hemisphere project, under which 
four billion call records per day, including "every call that passes 
through an AT&T switch-not
just those made by AT&T customers," are 
provided to the government. AT&T grants government officials access to 
customer proprietary
network information ("CPNI") pursuant to 
administrative subpoenas, which are issued by the DEA and are not 
subject to judicial
oversight. The second, released in early November 
2013, found that AT&T sells CPNI to the CIA. According to the report, 
"[t]he
C.I.A. supplies phone numbers of overseas terrorism suspects, 
and AT&T searches its database and provides records of calls that
may 
help identify foreign associates [.]" AT&T is not under a court order 
or subpoena to disclose CPNI to the CIA.

EPIC's letter
explained that AT&T's actions violated Section 222 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which mandates that telecommunications

carriers, such as AT&T, protect CPNI. EPIC also informed the Commission 
that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
has 
issued a draft resolution underscoring the crucial role of the FCC in 
protecting consumer information.

Earlier in 2013, EPIC
asked the FCC to resolve whether Verizon violated 
the Communications Act when it released consumer call detail 
information to the
NSA. "The role of carriers like Verizon is 
particularly important because the structure of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance
Act does not allow for meaningful public 
oversight or accountability," EPIC argued. Thus, "millions of consumers 
had no way of
knowing that their personal information had been 
illegally provided to the NSA by Verizon" - yet at the same time, 
"these consumers
are completely dependent on Verizon for the protection 
of their personal phone records."


EPIC:  Letter to FCC re: AT&T (Nov. 15,
2013) 
    https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/EPIC-FCC-Wheeler-Ltr.pdf

NARUC:  Resolution (Nov. 8, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/112713-naruc-resolution.html

The New York Times: Hemisphere (Sep. 1, 2013)     
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-
    trove-eclipsing-nsas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The New York Times:  CIA (Nov. 7, 2013) 
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/cia-is-said-to-pay-att-for-
    call-data.html?pagewanted=1

EPIC:  Letter to FCC re: NSA Surveillance (Jun. 11, 2013)
   http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/EPIC-FCC-re-Verizon.pdf

FISA:  Verizon Order (Apr. 23, 2013)
   http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/Section-215-Order-to-Verizon.pdf

EPIC:  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
   http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/

EPIC:  Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l
   http://epic.org/amicus/fisa/clapper/

EPIC:  USA PATRIOT Act
   http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
   

========================================================================
[5] Government Audit Finds TSA Behavior Analysis Program
'Ineffective'
========================================================================

The Government Accountability Office has
issued a report to Congress 
finding that the Transportation Security Administration's behavioral 
analysis program, known as "Screening
of Passengers by Observation 
Techniques" (SPOT), is ineffective. The GAO determined that there is no 
scientifically valid evidence
for behavior indicators, and that TSA 
screeners cannot reliably interpret passenger behavior. The GAO report 
also notes that the
there have been significant concerns over racial 
and ethnic profiling. 

Approximately 3,000 TSA officers are currently assigned
to the SPOT 
program, which has cost approximately $900 million since 2007. The GAO 
recommended the Congress reduce further funding
of the program.

In testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2003, EPIC warned, "It is 
easy to construct a device that can determine
whether a person is 
carrying a gun before he boards an airplane. It is much more difficult 
to construct a device that can probe
his thoughts and determine his 
intent to commit a crime." Since that time, EPIC has objected to the 
DHS's practice of assigning
threat profiles based on race, ethnicity, 
and gender. EPIC has also called upon the TSA to undertake a 
comprehensive audit of the
civil rights impact of airport screening 
policies on racial and religious minorities.

Another TSA program, the Visible Intermodal
Prevention and Response 
(VIPR) program also has had its effectiveness called into question for 
similar reasons. The VIPR program
involves warrantless searches at 
various locations, including festivals, sporting events, and bus 
stations. Like the SPOT program,
the VIPR program lacks performance 
metrics despite a $100 million dollar budget.

In 2007, EPIC submitted comments to the Department
of Homeland Security 
opposing the implementation of Secure Flight, a passenger profiling 
program that would maintain watch lists
of names of individuals 
suspected of posing a risk to air travel. EPIC warned against the high 
error rates of watch lists and the
lack of redress for travelers on 
the list.


GAO:  Report on TSA Behavioral Profiling (Nov. 2013)
    http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658923.pdf

EPIC:  Testimony Before 9/11 Commission (Dec. 8, 2003)
    http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/911commtest.pdf

EPIC:  Comments to DHS re: Automated Targeting System (June 21, 2012)
    http://epic.org/privacy/travel/ats/EPIC-ATS-Comments-2012.pdf

EPIC:  Letter to DHS re: TSA Racial Profiling Audit (Dec. 1, 2011)
    http://epic.org/redirect/112713-epic-letter-profiling.html

US House:  Report on TSA (Sept. 2012)
    http://epic.org/redirect/081313-house-report-tsa.html

EPIC:  Comments to DHS re: Secure Flight (Sept. 24, 2007)
    http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/sf_092407.pdf

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

EPIC Files FOIA Request with FTC re: Facebook Investigation

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal 
Trade Commission for documents concerning the FTC's recent 
"investigation" of Facebook's policy changes.
The investigation 
concerned changes to Facebook's Data Use Policy that permit the use of 
the names, images, and content of Facebook
users for commercial 
endorsement without user consent. Following announcement of the 
proposed change, EPIC and several several
privacy groups wrote to the 
FTC objecting to the changes as a violation of a 2011 consent order 
with Federal Trade Commission.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) also expressed 
concern about the policy changes. The Commission opened an 
investigation, which was then
quietly closed allowing Facebook to go 
forward with the changes. 


EPIC:  FOIA Request on FTC Facebook Investigation (Nov. 18,
2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/FTC-FB-FOIA-11-18-13.pdf

EPIC et al.:  Letter to FTC re: Facebook Policy Changes (Sep. 4, 2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/Privacy-Grps-FTC-tr-9-13.pdf

Sen. Markey (D- MA):  Press Release on Facebook Letter (Sep. 11, 2013)
    http://www.markey.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345696

EPIC:  FTC
    http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/

EPIC:  FOIA
    http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/



United Nations Considers Privacy Resolution

In response to growing concern over the scope of electronic 
surveillance, the UN
General Assembly is considering a resolution 
affirming that privacy is a fundamental right. Civil society groups 
have long urged
international organizations to update and strengthen 
global frameworks for privacy protection. The UN resolution now under 
consideration
is a response to reports that the US conducted 
surveillance of many foreign leaders, including Brazilian President 
Dilma Rousseff
and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Brazil and Germany 
are leading the effort at the United Nations on the privacy resolution.

The European Parliament also is pursuing an investigation of the "Mass 
Surveillance of EU Citizens." The US Congress itself is
considering 
legislation, such as the USA FREEDOM Act, to reign in surveillance 
activities. 


UN:  Draft Privacy Resolution (Nov.
2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/intl/UN-Priv-Res.pdf

The Public Voice:  2013 Conference in Warsaw, Poland (Sep. 2013)
    http://thepublicvoice.org/events/warsaw13/

EU:  LIBE Committee Events
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/events.html

Sen. Leahy (D-VT): Press Release on USA FREEDOM Act (Oct. 29, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/112713-leahy-freedom-act.html

The Public Voice:  The Madrid Declaration (Nov. 3, 2009)
    http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/
    
========================================================================
[7] EPIC in the News
========================================================================

"The Government's Secret Plan to Shut Off Cellphones and the Internet, 
Explained." Mother Jones, Nov. 26, 2013.  
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/internet-phone-kill-
    switch-explained
    
"Embracing big brother: How facial recognition could help fight crime."
CNN, Nov. 25, 2013.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/tech/embracing-big-brother-facial-
    recognition/
    
"Washington's overall take on data brokers muddled." Politico, Nov. 25,
2013.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/washingtons-overall-take-on-
    data-brokers-muddled-100316.html?hp=r4

"The Government Might Finally Have to Explain Its 'Internet Kill 
Switch Policy," by EPIC Consumer Protection Counsel David Jacobs.
Slate, Nov. 25, 2013.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/25/internet_kill_
    switch_government_might_have_to_disclose_its_standard_operating.html

"LG Promises to Shut Down TV Spy Ops." E-Commerce Times, Nov. 21, 2013.
    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/79491.html
    
"Judge Orders Homeland Security to Release Details for Shutting Down 
Wireless Networks." NextGov, Nov. 20, 2013.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/judge-orders-homeland-
    security-to-release-details-for-shutting-down-wireless-networks-
    131120?news=851707
    
"Congress and Courts Weigh Restraints on N.S.A. Spying." The New York
Times, Nov. 19, 2013.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/politics/congress-and-courts-
    weigh-restraints-on-nsa-spying.html

"Google to Pay $17 Million to Settle Privacy Case." The New York Times,
Nov. 18, 2013.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/technology/google-to-pay-17-
    million-to-settle-privacy-case.html?_r=0
    
"Supreme Court won't hear challenge to NSA's phone-records collection."
The Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2013.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-hear-
    challenge-to-spying-program/2013/11/18/9bfcd45a-506c-11e3-9fe0-
    fd2ca728e67c_story.html
    
"NSA surveillance programs face challenges in court." USA Today, Nov.
18, 2013.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/16/supreme-
    federal-court-surveillance-verizon/3581325/
    
"Feinstein promotes bill to strengthen NSA's hand on warrantless 
searches." The Guardian, Nov. 15, 2013.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/15/feinstein-bill-
    nsa-warrantless-searches-surveillance
    
    
For More EPIC in the News: http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html

========================================================================
[8] EPIC Book Review:  'Hatching Twitter'
========================================================================


"Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and 
Betrayal," Nick Bilton

http://epic.org/redirect/112713-hatching-twitter-bilton.html

Pop quiz: How do you write the story of a Silicon Valley startup after 
the cinematic success of "The Social Network"? 

Anglo-American
journalist Nick Bilton tackles this cultural challenge 
in his new book, "Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, 
Friendship,
and Betrayal." From the title alone, Bilton may have 
already lost; his audience has heard this story before. Even his 
Author's
Note, which opens the book, delivers a deconstructionist 
caveat about the fallibility of memory and the significance of 
documentation
when reconstructing a reliable record. Bilton writes, 
"It became apparent in the interviews for the book that people's 
memories
of past events have changed over time." He relates that, in an 
attempt to compensate for these divergent memories, "In every instance

possible I have tried to triangulate timing and location of events 
using documents I obtained, and, of course, social media." He
explains 
that, to make these calculations, he pored over hundreds of hours of 
interviews, more than a thousand documents, and tens
of thousands of 
tweets, photos and videos. He also notes, "Any instance of a 
character's inner monologue or emotional state is
based on interviews 
with that individual and not assumed." 

Against that backdrop, the story begins with a chapter titled "#START."

The chapters in Hatching Twitter are all hashtagged, and where a 
subchapter tells part of the story from one person's perspective,
the 
subchapter is tagged with an @. The narrative bounces back and forth 
between the founders' perspectives, moving forward chronologically
from 
Ev Williams' successful sale of Blogger in 2003 through his ousting 
from Twitter in 2010. If there were a protagonist in this
story, it 
would be Williams. His role in Twitter's development the thread tying 
together the book's various perspectives. But every
person's story is 
told with the same immaculate detail, including reconstructed 
conversations, thoughts, feelings, and impulses.
Bilton doesn't 
surrender his narrative voice, however - he fills in the gaps left by 
divergent memories with editorial remarks
about the significance of 
the moment. In these moments, his background as a New York Times 
columnist and reporter are most evident.

The factors that shape this book - the success of the Facebook story 
as entertainment, the postmodern reflection on memory in the
author's 
statement, the kitsch of beginning each chapter with a Twitter tag, and 
the columnist's narrative voice - could easily
have ruined this book's 
chances at success. Those elements could have pulled the book in too 
many directions for a cohesive story
to emerge. 
 
But "Hatching Twitter" is fantastic. It's truly a success. Progressing 
through the narrative, all the divergent factors
coalesce to answer 
that initial question of how the story of Twitter could compete in a 
Facebook world. The answer is that the
book reads like a Twitter feed. 
The story is as different from the Facebook story as Twitter is 
different from Facebook (both are
Internet social media platforms, but 
that's about it). The book's similarity to Twitter also explains the 
author's preface about
reconstructed memories. Twitter is a constant 
stream of recorded memory; dialogue, thoughts, feelings, and impulses. 
The whole
complexity of a person's life can be read in the tweets of an 
ardent user. And Bilton's gripping prose relates that complexity so

effortlessly that it's easy to forget that these aren't fictional 
characters. That's why Bilton needs to step into the narrative

occasionally - to remind the reader that this is a real story. Not just 
inspired by a real story, but a near-exact replica. 

"Hatching
Twitter"'s success is Bilton's success in recognizing the 
mountain of obstacles facing the narrator of the Twitter story. 
Instead
of letting those obstacles drag the story apart, Bilton 
harnesses them into a rich, detailed, faithful account - which is also 
compulsively readable.


-- Julia Horwitz


==========================================
EPIC Bookstore
==========================================

"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
=======================================================================

"Privacy in the Networked World," featuring EPIC Appellate Advocacy
Counsel Alan Butler.  Waikoloa, Hawaii, January 26, 2014. For
More
Information:  http://www.alaskatel.org/Flyer2.pdf.

=======================================================================
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 20.23------------------------