Title:EPIC - Electronic Privacy Information Center
Description:The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) focuses public attention on emerging civil liberties, privacy, First Amendment issues and works to promote the Public Voice in decisions concerning the future of the Internet.
Keywords:amicus,amicus curiae,amicus briefs,amicus curiae briefs,friend of the court,friend of the court briefs,EPIC,privacy,civil liberties,court,Supreme Court
Body:

EPIC - Electronic Privacy Information Center
EPIC - Electronic Privacy Information Center
Home
About EPIC
Policy Issues
Bookstore
Press
Events
Support EPIC
Focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues
Latest News - May 26, 2012
EPIC to Testify on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing on May 31, 2012 regarding the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. For more information, see EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Posted on May 25, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
French Data Protection Authority Sends New Questions to Google
The CNIL, the French data protection authority, has sent Google new questions regarding its privacy practices after finding the company's previous response was #8220;often incomplete or approximate." The French agency is acting on behalf of governments across Europe that have raised questions about recent changes in Google's business practices. "The fact that Google's position on personal data processings is still unclear on many points after an in-depth exchange with the CNIL raises additional concerns about Google's adequate information of its users," the letter says. Google executives met with the CNIL on Wednesday, but the data protection authority said that many of its concerns had still not been addressed. Google #8217;s decision to consolidate user data from over 60 products and services has also been criticized in the US by Members of Congress, state Attorneys General, and IT managers in government and the private sector. EPIC brought an enforcement action to block the March 1, 2012 changes. For more information, see EPIC: Enforcement of Google Consent Order.
Posted on May 25, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
Senate Approves FDA Transparency Amendment
The Senate has approved a pro-transparency amendment sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. Senator Leahy's amendment will preserve public access to information in the agency's possession related to drugs and pharmaceuticals. The Act originally would have allowed the agency to deny public access to information relating to drugs obtained from a federal, state, local, or foreign government agency if that agency had requested that the information be kept confidential. Many members of the government transparency and accountability community objected in a letter to Congress, highlighting the importance of transparency regarding drug information and the potential health and safety risks created by the original language. For more information, see Openthegovernment.org and EPIC: Open Government.
Posted on May 24, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
Facebook Users Force Vote on Privacy Changes
Facebook users have registered enough comments on Facebook's proposed privacy changes to force a vote on the issue. A provision in Facebook #8217;s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities states that Facebook will allow users to vote on proposed alternatives if more than 7,000 users comment on a proposed change. The vote is binding if "more than 30 percent of all active registered users as of the date of the notice vote." Facebook's Data Use Policy accumulated 10,500 comments in English. The group Europe v. Facebook generated 30,000 comments on the German version of the page. The FTC recently issued a proposed settlement with Facebook that follows from complaints filed by EPIC and other consumer and privacy organizations in 2009 and 2010. The settlement bars Facebook from changing privacy settings without the affirmative consent of users or misrepresenting the privacy or security of users' personal information. For more information, see EPIC: Facebook Privacy, and EPIC: FTC Facebook Settlement.
Posted on May 22, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
Supreme Court Set to Review Wiretap Case
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, a challenge to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Act expanded the Government's authority to engage in warrantless surveillance, and followed news of the Bush administration's program to wiretap international communications. A group of lawyers, journalists, and public interest organizations, who regularly engage in international communications, challenged the new law saying they feared that their private communications would be intercepted. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the case could proceed even though the plaintiffs had not established that they were subject to surveillance. The Government filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case, which was granted today. EPIC recently filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case, First American v. Edwards, raising similar Article III standing issues in the context of a consumer protection statute. EPIC also filed an amicus brief along with the Stanford Constitutional Law Center and other interested groups, in Hepting v. AT T, a case challenging AT T's involvement in the FISA warrantless wiretapping program. For more information, see EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Posted on May 21, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
EPIC Urges the Drug Enforcement Administration to Uphold Privacy Act Protections
In response to a notice of proposed rulemaking, EPIC has submitted comments to the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice, urging the agency to uphold Privacy Act protections, and to not claim broad exemptions from the Privacy Act. The proposed rule would exempt the agency from complying with crucial Privacy Act provisions, including the rights of record access and correction, and the duty to only collect relevant and necessary personal information. The proposed rule would even excuse the agency from any civil liability arising from willful Privacy Act violations. Following the Supreme Court decision in FAA v. Cooper, EPIC has set out proposed changes to the Privacy Act that would compensate individuals for provable nonpecuniary harms caused by willful violations of the Privacy Act. For more information, see EPIC: FAA v. Cooper and EPIC: The Privacy Act of 1974.
Posted on May 21, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
Federal Appeals Court Backs Justice Department in Voting Rights Dispute
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion rejecting Shelby County, Alabama's constitutional challenge to the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that Section 5 of the Act, which requires "covered jurisdictions" to show that new voting procedures, such as Voter ID requirements, are nondiscriminatory before those changes can be put into effect, is constitutional. Shelby County challenged the preclearance requirements after Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 2006. The Department of Justice recently blocked Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County.
Posted on May 18, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
House Approves Amendment to Defense Spending Bill to Limit Defense Drones Surveillance
The House of Representatives has approved an amendment, introduced by Congressman Landry (R-LA), to the National Defense Authorization Act to prohibit information collected by Department of Defense drones without a warrant from being used as evidence in court. New legislation requires the Federal Aviation Administration to develop rules governing the operation of drones in the U.S. National Airspace. Shortly after passage, EPIC, joined by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, submitted a petition to the FAA requesting a public rulemaking on the privacy impact of drone use in US airspace. The petition is still pending with the agency. For more information, see EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones.
Posted on May 17, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
Privacy Board Approved by Judiciary Committee, Vote Moves to Senate
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has approved President Obama's five nominees for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The Board is an independent entity charged with ensuring that fundamental rights are protected in the implementation of government programs, including cybersecurity. Originally convened in 2004, the five seats on the Board have remained vacant for the past five years. Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, "When we worked to create this board, we did so to ensure that our fundamental rights and liberties would be preserved #8230;The Senate should move quickly to confirm the nominees to the board so that they can get to their important work." For more information, see EPIC: 9/11 Commission Report and "The Sui Generis Privacy Agency: How the United States Institutionalized Privacy Oversight After 9-11."
Posted on May 17, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
EPIC Supports Geolocation Privacy Act, Suggests Improvement
In a Statement for the Record, EPIC has expressed support for H.R. 2168, the "Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act," which prohibits the interception of location information by private parties and government agents acting without a search warrant. The bill will be considered at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. EPIC said "as communications technologies evolve, new forms of personal information are generated that require new legal safeguards." EPIC also recommended that Congress adopt purpose-specification and data limitation requirements for data stored by private companies, require affirmative consent prior to the collection of location data, and clarify an exception that permits the interception of location data made available through publicly accessible systems. For more information, see EPIC: Location Privacy.
Posted on May 16, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
FAA Revises Drone License Procedures, Privacy Petition Still Pending
The Federal Aviation Administration has announced new procedures for government agencies that operate drones in the United States. The procedures will streamline the process through which government agencies, including local law enforcement, receive drone licenses. However, the FAA has so far failed to establish privacy safeguards for drone use. On February 24, 2012, EPIC, joined by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, submitted a petition to the FAA requesting a public rulemaking on the privacy impact of drone use in US airspace. For more information, see EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones.
Posted on May 15, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
EPIC Proposes Update to Privacy Act to Address Recent Supreme Court Decision
Following the recent decision of the Supreme Court in FAA v. Cooper, EPIC has set out proposed changes to the Privacy Act that would compensate individuals for provable nonpecuniary harms caused by willful violations of the Privacy Act. In Cooper, the Supreme Court held that the Privacy Act "does not unequivocally authorize" compensatory damages for mental or emotional distress. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, wrote in dissent that "the primary, and often only, damages sustained as a result of an invasion of privacy are . . . mental or emotional distress." EPIC recommended that the Privacy Act explicitly define "actual damages" to include provable mental and emotional distress. EPIC's letter follows an earlier request from Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) for comment on S.1732, the Privacy Act Modernization for the Information Age Act of 2011. For more information, see, EPIC: FAA v. Cooper and EPIC: The Privacy Act of 1974.
Posted on May 14, 2012 | Permalink
Share this post: del.icio.us | digg | Linked In | Technorati | Twitter | Facebook
Top News Archive
Search epic.org
Donate to EPIC
p
EPIC 2012 Brochure (pdf)
Connect with EPIC
Subscribe to Alerts
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
Previous EPIC Alerts
Internet Privacy Infographic
Infographic by frugaldad.com
Hot Policy Issues
Body Scanners
Cloud Computing
Childrens' Online Privacy
DHS Media Monitoring
Drones and UAVs
EU Data Protection Directive
Facebook
Facebook Facial Recognition
FAST Project
FBI Watchlist
FCC Google Street View Investigation
Fusion Centers
Google Street View
Intelligence Oversight Board
Locational Privacy
Medical Record Privacy
National ID
NSTIC
Open Government
PATRIOT Act
Privacy Convention
Re-identification
Search Engine Privacy
Secure Communities
Smart Grid
Social Networking Privacy
Voter Photo ID
EPIC Publications
Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010
More EPIC Publications...
EPIC Bookstore Feature
Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice
More EPIC Publications...
Resources
EPIC Alert [subscribe]
EPIC Bookstore
EPIC Events
EPIC Press Releases
EPIC Privacy Tools
EPIC Reports
Former Secrets (FOIA)
Privacy Resources
About EPIC
About EPIC
Support EPIC
Advisory Board
Board and Staff
EPIC Fellowships/IPIOP Clerkships
Litigation Docket
Privacy Policy
Affiliated Sites
Previous EPIC Brochures (pdf)
____________________
____________________
Coalitions
Global Internet Liberty Campaign
In Defense of Freedom
Internet Free Expression Alliance
National Comm. for Voting Integrity
On the Identity Trail
Privacy Coalition
Privacy International
The Privacy Site
The Public Voice
Security Framework Project
Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue
FOIA Documents
EPIC FOIA Notes
EPIC FOIA Note #20: Government Transparency
FOIA Gallery 2012
FOIA Notes
EPIC Former Secrets
Spotlight on Surveillance
Proposed "Enhanced" Licenses are Costly to Security and Privacy
Spotlight on Surveillance Archive
Privacy Report Card
p
View the EPIC 2010 Report Card here.
View the press release here.
EPIC 2009 Report Card
Privacy Google Books
Google Books Settlement Privacy
Google Books Policy
Google Books Litigation
Take Action
____________________
Upcoming Events
Join Dahlia Lithwick,
Senator Al Franken,
Judge Alex Kozinski,
and Dana Priest for
EPIC's 2012 Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner
Washington, D.C.
June 11, 2012
____________________
#PrivChat
Amie Stepanovich
EPIC National Security Counsel
May 22, 2012
More EPIC Events...
Recent EPIC Events
The Public Voice Conference:"Privacy is Freedom"
The Public Voice
Mexico City
October 31, 2011
____________________
EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards
____________________
Computers Freedom Privacy 2011: The Future is Now
Facebook Page
CFP 2011 Brochure
Stop Body Scanners
EPIC has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review.
Details on EPIC v. DHS
EPIC Body Scanner Incident Report
EPIC's Body Scanner Facebook Page
Privacy Video
RT: Blogger tricks TSA body scanners
____________________
ABC News: Google's 'IOS' Work Around Causes Privacy Concern
____________________
Bloomberg: Google's Privacy Changes: What Users Should Know
Previous Video Archive...
EPIC in the News
House-approved NDAA would restrict use of drone infoGovernment Security NewsMay 21, 2012
____________________
Drones pose a threat to Americans' privacyWashington ExaminerMay 21, 2012
____________________
Social Network Pumps Up LobbyingWall Street JournalMay 17, 2012
More EPIC in the News...
EPIC Docket Highlights
EPIC Cases
EPIC FOIA Cases
EPIC v. DHS (Defense Contractor Monitoring)
EPIC v. DHS (FOIA, Body Scanners)
EPIC v. DHS (Body Scanner Radiation Risks)
EPIC v. DHS (Mobile Body Scanners)
EPIC v. DHS (Social Media Monitoring)
EPIC v. DOD (TIA/Fee Waiver)
EPIC v. DOJ (FOIA, Body Scanners)
EPIC v. DOJ (IOB reports)
EPIC v. DOJ (Warrantless Wiretapping)
EPIC v. DOJ FBI (Wikileaks)
EPIC v. FTC (Conflict of Interest)
EPIC v. NSA (Cybersecurity Authority)
EPIC v. NSA (Google Relationship)
EPIC v. TSA (Body Scanner Modifications)
EPIC v. VSP (Fusion Centers)
Other EPIC Cases
EPIC v. DHS (Emergency Stay, Body Scanners)
EPIC FTC Complaint (Google)
EPIC FTC Complaint (Phone Records)
EPIC v. ED (Student Privacy)
EPIC v. FTC (Google Consent Order)
Gonzales v. ACLU (NSLs)
In re Facebook (Settings)
In re Facebook II (Settings)
In re Google (Buzz)
In re Google (Cloud Computing)
EPIC Amicus Briefs:
Recent EPIC Briefs
Chicago Tribune v. Univ. of Illinois (FERPA)
Doe v. Luzerne County (Informational Privacy)
FAA v. Cooper (Privacy Act)
First American v. Edwards (Statutory Damages)
In re Google Street View (Wiretap Act)
NJ v. Earls (Phone Tracking)
US v. Jones (GPS Tracking)
Other EPIC Briefs
ACLU v. DOD (Secrecy)
BATF v. Chicago (FOIA)
Bunnell v. MPAA (Wiretap)
City of Ontario v. Quon (Txt Messages)
Commonwealth v. Connolly (GPS Tracking)
Crawford v. Marion County (Voter ID)
Doe v. Chao (Privacy Act)
Doe v. Reed (Petition Signatures)
FCC v. AT T (FOIA)
Flores-Figueroa v. US (ID Theft)
G.D. v. Kenny (Expungement)
Gilmore v. Ashcroft (Secrecy)
Gonzales v. Doe (Wiretap)
Google Books Settlement
Harris v. Blockbuster (Facebook Privacy)
Hepting v. AT amp;T (Wiretap)
Herring v. US (Errors in databases)
Hiibel v. Nevada (Anonymity)
IMS Health v. Ayotte (Medical privacy)
IMS Health v. Sorrell (Medical Privacy)
Kehoe v. Fidelity Bank (Consumer privacy)
Kohler v. Englade (DNA)
NASA v. Nelson (Employee Privacy)
NCTA v. FCC (Phone records privacy)
New Jersey v. Reid (ISP subscriber privacy)
Ostergren v. McDonnell (Identity Theft)
Peterson v. NTIA (WHOIS data)
Reno v. Condon (DPPA)
SEC v. Galleon (Wiretapping)
Smith v. Doe (Megans Law)
Tolentino v. New York (Police Searches)
US v. Councilman (Wiretap)
US v. Kincade (DNA)
US v. Pool (DNA)
Watchtower Bible v. Stratton (Anonymity)
Privacy Campaigns
EPIC's 2010 E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Report
____________________
____________________
Internet Privacy Infographic
____________________
Electronic Privacy Information Center | 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009 | More info