=======================================================================
                   E P I C   A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 21.08                                             April 30, 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_21.08.html

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


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

[1] Supreme Court Hears Cell Phone Privacy Cases
[2] Appeals Court Orders Release of Classified Legal Analysis
[3] EPIC Obtains
Documents on FTC's Facebook Investigation  
[4] Pew Survey Finds Opposition to Drones and Google Glass
[5] Amid Privacy Backlash,
Student Data Firm Dissolves
[6] News in Brief 
[7] EPIC in the News 
[8] EPIC Bookstore
[9] Upcoming Conferences and Events


TAKE
ACTION:  Speak Out on the New Internet Registration Directory!
TAKE the Survey:  http://epic.org/redirect/042114-rds-survey.html
LEARN about Domain Name Privacy:  http://epic.org/privacy/whois/
SUPPORT EPIC:  http://epic.org/support


=========================================================================
[1] Supreme Court Hears Cell Phone Privacy Cases
=========================================================================

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 29 in two cases 
pertaining to the warrantless search of a cell phone following
an 
arrest. 

EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief, signed by 24 technical 
experts and legal scholars, in the case Riley v.
CA, arguing that the 
Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for law enforcement to inspect the 
data on an arrested individual's mobile
phone. Because of the vast 
amount of personal information available on a typical phone, EPIC 
wrote, "[a]llowing police officers
to search a person's cell phone 
without a warrant following an arrest would be a substantial 
infringement on privacy, is unnecessary,
and unreasonable under the 
Fourth Amendment." 

During oral argument, counsel for the petitioner Riley, Jeffrey Fisher, 
cited EPIC's
brief in addressing the possibility that evidence might be 
destroyed through a process known as "remote wiping." Fisher stated 
that "The concern about remote wiping we think, and as the experts have 
described in the amicus brief filed by EPIC and many others,
we don't 
think would ever . . . give rise to a situation where that was a 
legitimate concern." 

EPIC's brief explains how US consumers
are dependent on cell phones for 
a wide range of personal and business activities; that a great deal of 
personal information can
be stored on cell phones; and that mobile 
applications can provide access to sensitive information stored on 
remote servers. Cell
phones can also serve as an authenticator for 
identity in mobile banking or even in gaining access to one's car or 
home. According
to EPIC, "a mobile phone acts as a master key that can 
grant access to, and prove a connection with, all of the user's various 
online and offline identities. The phone provides a portal to personal 
data stored on the cloud. Like a password, control over the
phone is 
control over the data."

EPIC has filed many "friend of the court" briefs in Fourth Amendment 
cases before the Supreme
Court, including Maryland v. King (collection 
of DNA samples) and United States v. Jones (GPS tracking).


US Supreme Court:  Oral
Argument in Riley v. CA (Apr. 29, 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-scotus-riley-argument.html

EPIC:  "Friend of the Court" Brief in Riley v. CA (Mar. 10, 2014)
    http://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf 

EPIC:  Riley v. CA
    http://epic.org/amicus/cell-phone/riley/ 

EPIC:  Maryland v. King
    https://epic.org/amicus/dna-act/maryland/ 

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

EPIC:  Amicus Curiae Briefs
    http://epic.org/amicus/ 


========================================================================
[2] Appeals Court Orders Release of Classified Legal
Analysis
========================================================================

A federal court of appeals has ruled that the
US Department of Justice 
must release the legal analysis justifying the controversial "targeted 
killing" drone program. The ruling
stems from a Freedom of Information 
Act lawsuit seeking the legal memo from the Department of Justice's 
Office of Legal Counsel providing the legal analysis for the targeted

killing program. The appeals court's ruling reverses the previous 
opinion by a lower court.

The government argued in the case
New York Times v. Department of 
Justice that the analysis should be exempt from release as a privileged 
communication. But the
ACLU and The New York Times, supported by EPIC 
and other open government organizations, argued that because the 
government relied
on the legal reasoning to justify the drone program 
it cannot be kept secret. The Second Circuit agreed, ruling that after 
"senior
Government officials have assured the public" that the program 
is "lawful and that . . . advice establishes the legal boundaries,"
it 
can no longer claim that the document is exempt from FOIA.

EPIC's "friend of the court" brief was joined by seven open-government

organizations and argued that secret law contravenes both democratic 
principles and the separation of powers. The brief asserted
that 
disclosure of the targeted killing memo would promote public debate in 
line with the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act; in other 
words, such "secret law is inconsistent with our form of government. 
They frustrate public oversight and diminish the
legitimacy of 
government."

EPIC has pursued a similar case for more than seven years, seeking the 
disclosure of the Office of
Legal Counsel's legal analysis of the 
Warrantless Wiretapping program - a secret program under which the NSA 
conducted warrantless
surveillance of international telephone and 
Internet communications on American soil. FOIA documents obtained by 
EPIC to date show
that a former top official in the Justice Department 
doubted that the domestic surveillance program was allowed under the 
Authorization
for Use of Military Force Resolution.

Earlier in 2014 EPIC wrote in The New York Times that if "the Justice 
Department expects
others to follow its advice, the analysis that 
supports its conclusions should be made public."


Second Circuit Court:  Opinion
in NYT v. DOJ (Apr. 21, 2014)
    http://epic.org/amicus/foia/new-york-times/2d-Cir-Opinion.pdf

EPIC et al.:  "Friend of the Court" Brief in NYT v. DOJ (Apr. 22, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-epic-amicus-nyt-doj.html

EPIC:  New York Times v. DOJ
    http://epic.org/amicus/foia/new-york-times/

EPIC:  EPIC v. DOJ - Warrantless Wiretapping Program
     http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/

NYT:  EPIC Op-ed: "Make Legal Memos Public" (Jan. 20, 2014)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/opinion/make-legal-memos-
    public.html


=========================================================================
[3] EPIC Obtains Documents on FTC's Facebook Investigation
=========================================================================

As the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, EPIC has 
received several hundred pages of documents related to the Federal 
Trade Commission's investigation of Facebook's
business practices. 
The often heavily redacted documents include the FTC's assessments of 
Facebook's privacy changes, communications
with Facebook, and 
communications sent by consumer organizations, including EPIC, urging 
the Commission to abide by obligations
to protect Facebook users' 
privacy.

EPIC has repeatedly pressed the Commission to enforce the 2011 Consent 
Order, which barred
Facebook from future changes to privacy settings 
without user consent. The Consent Order, which followed an 
investigation into
whether "Facebook deceived consumers by telling them 
they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then 
repeatedly
allowing it to be shared and made public," committed 
Facebook to develop a "comprehensive privacy program." The Order also 
required
Facebook to give users "clear and prominent notice"; to obtain 
users' "express consent before sharing their information beyond their

privacy settings"; to maintain "a comprehensive privacy program to 
protect consumers' information"; and prohibited Facebook from

misrepresenting the extent to which it participates in the US-EU Safe 
Harbor program.

EPIC also recently filed a complaint with
the FTC about Facebook's 
acquisition of WhatsApp, an instant messaging service. EPIC followed up 
with a supplemental complaint
to the FTC, highlighting the Commission's 
failure to investigate mergers that similarly threaten consumer privacy. 
EPIC cited Google's
recent acquisition of Nest, a manufacturer of 
"smart" thermostats that track and record data about users' energy 
consumption. 

EPIC's complaints resulted in the FTC's stern warning to Facebook not 
to violate WhatsApp user privacy. In the letter, which was
addressed to 
both Facebook and WhatsApp, the Commission cautioned, "if the 
acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor
[its privacy 
promises], both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the FTC 
Act and potentially the FTC's order against
Facebook." The FTC's letter 
concludes, "[H]undreds of millions of users have entrusted their 
personal information to WhatsApp.
The FTC staff continue to monitor the 
companies' practices to ensure that Facebook and WhatsApp honor the 
promises they have made
to those users." 
 

FTC:  FOIA Document Release, Part 1 (2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Chris-Olsen-Docs.pdf

FTC:  FOIA Document Release, Part 2 (2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Enforcement-Files.pdf

FTC:  FOIA Document Release, Part 3 (2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/Enforcement-Files.pdf

FTC:  In re Facebook (Mar. 17, 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/031714-FTC-in-re-FB.htmlc

EPIC:  WhatsApp Complaint (Mar. 6, 2014)
    http://epic.org/ftc/WhatsApp-Complaint.pdf

FTC:  Letter to Facebook and WhatsApp re: Proposed Sale (Apr. 10, 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/042114-ftc-whatsapp-letter.html

EPIC:  Facebook
    http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/


=========================================================================
[4] Pew Survey Finds Opposition to Drones and Google
Glass
=========================================================================

A national survey conducted by Pew Research Center
and Smithsonian 
Magazine finds that the American public is optimistic about revolutions 
in health science and transportation, and
concerned about the future of 
surveillance technologies. Sixty-three percent of the 1,001 Americans 
surveyed believe it would be
a change for the worse if "personal and 
commercial drones are given permission to fly through most U.S. 
airspace," while 22% think
it would be a change for the better. 

Fifty-three percent of the respondents felt it would be a change for 
the worse if most people
wear implants or other devices that constantly 
show them information about the world around them. Women are especially 
wary of
a future in which these devices are widespread. Google Glass, 
an example of such technology, has come under scrutiny from Data 
Protection authorities and the US Congress. 

In 2012, EPIC sent comments to the Federal Trade Commission, 
recommending the suspension
of facial recognition techniques pending 
the establishment of privacy safeguards. Also in 2012, EPIC, joined by 
100 other organizations
and experts, petitioned the Federal Aviation 
Administration to address public concerns about privacy and drones. 


Pew /Smithsonian:
"US Views of Technology and the Future" (Apr. 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-pew-smithsonian.html

Canadian DP Office:  Press Release on Google Glass (Jun 8, 2013)
    http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2013/nr-c_130618_e.asp

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

EPIC:  Comments to FTC on Facial Recognition (Jan. 31, 2012)
    http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/EPIC-Face-Facts-Comments.pdf 

EPIC et al.:  Petition to FAA on Drones and Privacy (Mar. 8, 2012)
    http://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf

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

EPIC:  Facial Recognition
    http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/ 

EPIC:  Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
    http://epic.org/privacy/drones/ 

 
=========================================================================
[5] Amid Privacy Backlash, Student Data Firm Dissolves
=========================================================================

inBloom, a private company that acquired student information
from 
school districts across the country, has shut down. The company said 
its work "has been stalled because of generalized public
concerns about 
data misuse". inBloom and other companies, including Google, acquired 
student data following the US Department of
Education's revisions to 
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which 
significantly weakened the law. FERPA protects
student records from 
unauthorized disclosures. 

In 2012, EPIC sued the Education Department for removing student 
privacy protections
from FERPA, including allowing the release of 
student records for non-academic purposes, undercutting parental 
consent provisions,
and promoting the public use of student IDs that 
enable access to private educational records. The court dismissed the 
lawsuit
on procedural grounds, but never addressed the underlying 
issue: whether the Education Department was allowed to make FERPA 
revisions
at all. 

In 2013, EPIC testified before the Colorado State Board of Education on 
student privacy issues surrounding inBloom. EPIC
noted, "By collecting 
troves of sensitive student information, schools, and the private 
companies to which they outsource information,
have a duty to ensure 
the security of that data." EPIC also set out suggestions for 
strengthening Colorado state privacy law to
protect students against 
the possibility of data breach and misuse stemming from inBloom's data 
collection. 

Specifically, EPIC
advised that Colorado should use "comprehensive 
agreements that explicitly address privacy obligations"; limit data 
collection
and transfer to inBloom solely to "necessary information"; 
increase access to conduct independent and network security reviews of

inBloom and other private technology services; provide parents and 
students with access to any agreements with inBloom and other
private 
education technology services; ensure that students and parents have 
access to educational records maintained by third-party
providers; and 
limit disclosure to third parties. In 2014, EPIC reiterated many of 
these suggestions in a call for a Student Privacy
Bill of Rights - an 
enforceable student privacy and data security framework.


inBloom
    https://www.inbloom.org/

EPIC:  Google Admits to Data Mining (Mar. 19, 2014)
    http://epic.org/2014/03/google-admits-to-data-mining-s.html

Federal Register:  (FERPA) Final Rule (Jun. 29, 2012)
    http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/2008%20Final%20Rule.pdf

EPIC:  FERPA
    http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/

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

EPIC/Washington Post:  Article on Student Privacy (Mar. 6, 2014)
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/06/
    why-a-student-privacy-bill-of-rights-is-desperately-needed/

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

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

EPIC v. DOJ: No Analysis of PRISM Legality

In a recently concluded Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC 
attempted to obtain legal analysis on the NSA's controversial PRISM 
surveillance program. The US Justice Department
responded that "no 
responsive records" existed. An earlier FOIA case brought by EPIC 
revealed that the Office of Legal Counsel
provided advice on President 
George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. But apparently no 
similar memos exist on the legality
of the NSA's mass collection of 
Internet traffic. 


EPIC:  EPIC v. DOJ - PRISM
    http://epic.org/foia/doj/olc/prism/

Justice Dept:  Response to EPIC FOIA Request re: Prism (Feb. 24, 2014)
    http://epic.org/foia/doj/olc/prism/Response.pdf

US Justice Dept:  Memo on Warrantless Surveillance (May 2004)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-2004-doj-surveillance.html



DHS Releases Cybersecurity Report; NSA Role Remains Murky

The Department of Homeland Security has published the agency's first

Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report. The report examines 
several federal agencies, including the Department of Defense
and the 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, vis à vis 
cybersecurity activities. In 2013, the White House issued Executive

Order 13636, "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity," which 
requires reports from DHS as well as the creation of a cybersecurity

framework; EPIC subsequently recommended civilian control of domestic 
cybersecurity and clarification of the NSA's involvement
in it. The 
Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report and the cybersecurity 
framework both fail to clarify the NSA's role in
cybersecurity. 


DHS:  Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report (Apr. 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-dhs-privacy-report.html

Federal Register:  Executive Order on Cybersecurity (Feb. 19, 2013)
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf

EPIC:  Comments to NIST re: Cybersecurity Framework (Dec. 13, 2013)
    http://epic.org/redirect/122013-EPIC-NIST-comments.html

EPIC:  Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications
    http://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/



Tech Standard Dropped Because of Suspected NSA Influence

Following an extensive public comment process, the National Institute

of Standards and Technology has removed a cryptographic algorithm from 
the agency's guidance on random number generators deployed
by 
government vendors. NIST recommends that current users of 
"Dual_EC_DRBG" transition to one of the three remaining approved 
algorithms as quickly as possible. NIST cited an internal evaluation 
and "a lack of public confidence in the algorithm" for the
removal.  
In 2013, the New York Times reported that the NSA had intentionally 
weakened cryptographic standards to enable surveillance,
raising 
concerns about the reliability of key Internet standards; NIST 
subsequently released new guidelines for the development
of 
cryptographic standards and requested public comment. EPIC, joined by 
several other organizations, urged the agency to explain
the extent of 
the NSA's role in the standards development process. The Computer 
Security Act of 1987 was passed explicitly to prevent
NSA involvement 
in domestic computer security.


NIST:  Press Release on Removal of Cryptographic Standard (Apr. 21, 2014)
    http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/sp800-90-042114.cfm

The New York Times:  Article on NSA and Cryptography (Sep. 5, 2013)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-
    encryption.html

NIST:  Draft Cryptographic Standards (Feb. 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-nist-draft-crypto.html

EPIC:  Comments to NIST on Cryptographic Standards (Apr. 18, 2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-epic-crypto-comments.html

EPIC: Computer Security Act of 1987
    http://epic.org/crypto/csa/



Car Data Privacy Bill Moves Forward in Senate

The Senate Commerce Committee has voted unanimously to approve the 
Driver Privacy
Act, a bipartisan bill that would provide privacy 
safeguards for event data recorders, or "black boxes," in cars. 
Introduced by
Senators John Hoeven (R-ND) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN),  
the bill prohibits unauthorized access to data that records driver 
activities.
Under the Act, data could only be obtained with: 
(1) written consent of all of the car owners or lessees; (2) a court 
or administrative
order; (3) a federal transportation safety 
investigation if personally identifiable information is redacted; 
(4) emergency car
crash medical response; or (5) traffic safety 
research if personally identifiable information is redacted. In 2013, 
EPIC, consumer
privacy organizations, and members of the public urged 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to protect driver 
privacy
by establishing many of the proposed safeguards in the Driver 
Privacy Act. 


US Senate:  Draft of Driver Privacy Act (Jan. 14,
2014)
    http://epic.org/redirect/043013-driver-privacy-act.html

EPIC et al.:  Letter to NHTSA on Event Data Recorders (Feb. 11, 2013)
    http://epic.org/privacy/edrs/EPIC-Coal-NHTSA-EDR-Cmts.pdf

EPIC:  Event Data Recorders and Privacy
    http://epic.org/privacy/edrs/default.html

    
    
Report Reveals Rise in Teens' Desire for Online Privacy

A report released by the Intelligence Group, a "youth-focused,
research-
based consumer insights company," reveals that teens want more online 
privacy than ever before. According to the report,
only 11% of teens 
currently share "a lot about themselves online" - a 7% decrease from 
the same age group in 2013. By contrast,
17% of young adults aged 19-24 
and 27% of adults aged 25 to 34 currently share "a lot about themselves 
online." The report also
indicates that "about 18% of teens share 
content on social media at least once a day, including status updates, 
photos, pins, or
articles, compared with 28% of 19- to 24-year-olds and 
35% of 25- to 34-year-olds." EPIC recently objected to a settlement 
agreement
that would allow Facebook to use images of teens in online 
advertising. EPIC has also filed comments with the FTC supporting 
stronger
regulations to protect children's data online. 


The Intelligence Group:  Report on Youth and Online Privacy (Apr. 2014)
    http://www.cassandra.co/report/

EPIC:  "Friend of the Court" Brief in Fraley v. Facebook (Feb. 20, 2014)
    http://epic.org/amicus/facebook/fraley/EPIC-Fraley-Amicus.pdf

EPIC:  Comments on FTC COPPA Revisions (Dec. 23, 2011)
   http://epic.org/redirect/122311-epic-coppa-comments.html

EPIC:  Fraley v. Facebook
    http://epic.org/amicus/facebook/fraley/

EPIC:  COPPA
    http://epic.org/privacy/kids/

EPIC:  FTC
    http://epic.org/privacy/internet/ftc/
    
========================================================================
[7] EPIC in the News
========================================================================

"What You Need To Know About the Cell Phone Privacy Arguments at the 
Supreme Court Today." The Wire, Apr. 29, 2014.
    http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/what-you-need-to-know-
    about-the-cell-phone-privacy-arguments-at-the-supreme-court-today/
    361362/

"What Parents Need To Know About Big Data And Student Privacy." NPR's
"All Tech Considered," Apr. 28, 2014.
   http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/04/28/305715935
   what-parents-need-to-know-about-big-data-and-student-privacy
   
"EPIC case could define what unclassified records government must turn 
over." Fierce Government, Apr. 28, 2014.
    http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/epic-case-could-define-what-
    unclassified-records-government-must-turn-over/2014-04-28
    
"The Supreme Court Is About to Decide the Future of Cell-Phone 
Privacy." National Journal, Apr. 28, 2014.
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-supreme-court-is-about-to-
    decide-the-future-of-cell-phone-privacy-20140428
    
"Justices to rule on cellphone searches without warrants." USA Today,
Apr. 28, 2014.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/28/supreme-court-
    cellphone-search-arrest/8147327/
    
"Wearable Devices Raise Privacy Concerns." VOA News, Apr. 25, 2014.
    http://blogs.voanews.com/techtonics/2014/04/25/wearable-devices-raise-
    privacy-concerns/
    
"Parents win against cloud storage of US students' private 
information." Naked Security, Apr. 24, 2014.
    http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/24/parents-win-against-
    cloud-storage-of-us-students-private-information/

"Appeals court orders Obama administration to disclose the legal theory 
for assassination of Americans." BoingBoing, Apr. 22, 2014.
    http://boingboing.net/2014/04/22/appeals-court-orders-obama-adm.html
    
"White House Updating Online Privacy Policy." Top Tech News, Apr. 
21, 2014.
    http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=111003TULE36
    
"Obama ordered to divulge legal basis for killing Americans with 
drones." Ars Technica, Apr. 21, 2014.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/obama-ordered-to-
    divulge-legal-basis-for-killing-americans-with-drones/
    
"Colby College panel debates privacy, security before Brody Award 
ceremony." The Morning Sentinel, Apr. 6, 2014.
    http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Colby_College_panel_debates_
    privacy__security_before_Brody_Award_ceremony_.html


For More EPIC in the News:  http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html

========================================================================
[8] 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
=======================================================================

Computers, Freedom & Privacy. Warrenton, VA, June 8-10, 2014. 
For More Information:  http://cfp.org/2014.

Fourth Annual International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy.
Washington, DC, June 4-5, 2014. For More Information:  
http://patientprivacyrights.org/summit/.

IEEE Presents "Reintroducing Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century."
Boston, 24-26 June 2014. For More Information:  
http://21stcenturywiener.org.


SAVE THE DATE:  EPIC's 2014 Champions of Freedom Dinner, Hosted by
Bruce Schneier:  http://epic.org/june02.

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

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).

=======================================================================
Support 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/support

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.

=======================================================================
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 21.08------------------------