This Page Will Return to the 'Harrold Related Index' After 5 minutes
From: EPIC-News
List
To: epic-news@epic.org
Subject: EPIC Alert 5.20
Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 3:47 PM
========================================================
Volume 5.20 December 17, 1998
-----------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org
======================================
================================= Table of
Contents =====================================================
==================
[1] EPIC Urges FCC to Reject FBI
Surveillance Proposal [2] Free Speech Groups Say "No" to
Library Filters [3] Appeals Court Upholds Drivers Privacy
Protection Act ***** [4] FDIC Proposes New "Spy on Your
Customer" Regulations ***** [5] CDC Issues Guidelines on HIV
Tracking [6] Australia Announces Privacy Law for
Businesses [7] EPIC Bookstore [8] Upcoming Conferences and
Events
EPIC, joined by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, filed
formal comments with the Federal Communications Commission on
December 14 urging the rejection FBI-proposed technical
requirements for wiretapping. The FBI proposals would --
among other things -- enable law enforcement to determine
the location of individuals using cellular telephones. Also at
issue is the surveillance of "packet-mode" communications such
as those that form the core of the Internet. The comments were
filed as part of the FCC's proceeding on implementation of the
controversial Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act (CALEA).
In a "Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking"
released on November 5, the Commission expressed its initial
opinion that an interim FBI/industry technical standard
(J-STD-025) on cellular phone "tracking" complies with CALEA.
The FCC withheld judgment on the packet-mode issue, but sided
with the FBI on the so-called "punchlist" issues of conference
call wiretaps, the capture of signaling information and
"post-cut-through digits," and other
surveillance capabilities.
The EPIC/EFF/ACLU comments
note that "as advancing technology increases the ability of
government agents to intercept private communications, the
potential threat to individual liberties grows." The groups
also urged the FCC to recognize that advanced
telecommunications services dramatically multiply the number
of private encounters that take place electronically and thus
create the potential for pervasive government surveillance of
private activities that were never previously subject to
government monitoring. The law firm of Covington & Burling
is providing pro bono assistance in this case.
Excerpts
from the comments:
Groups dedicated to the protection
of privacy expressed grave reservations in 1994 about the
potential for CALEA to be used improperly by law
enforcement to expand the scope of electronic
surveillance; with the filing of the DoJ/FBI Petition,
these concerns were realized. Now, with the release of
the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
the privacy of our Nation's communications is seriously
at risk. . . . In explaining its tentative conclusions,
the Commission offers virtually no discussion of privacy
interests. The Commission fails to explain how its
tentative conclusions are consistent with the privacy
protections embodied in CALEA, the Fourth Amendment and
Title III of the 1968 Wiretap Act.
Privacy interests
had no voice in drafting or adoption of the interim
standard. Having been excluded from these earlier
proceedings, it is imperative that privacy interests, as
directed by Congress, be given full consideration by the
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission must confront the
privacy issues raised by the interim standard and the
"punchlist" items. . . . [T]he Commission should find that
the industry's interim standard and the DoJ/FBI Petition, if
granted, would frustrate the privacy interests of federal
statutes and of the Fourth Amendment. The DoJ/FBI Petition
seeks surveillance capabilities that far exceed the
capabilities law enforcement has had in the past and is
entitled to under the law.
Additional information on
CALEA, including the full text of EPIC's comments, is
available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/
=====================
================================================== [2] Free
Speech Groups Say "No" to Library
Filters ======================================================
=================
Members of the Internet Free Expression
Alliance (IFEA) submitted a joint statement to the National
Commission on Library and Information Science (NCLIS) on
December 14, urging the Library Commission to oppose the use
of Internet filters in public libraries when it issues
its forthcoming report on "Kids and the Internet." EPIC
joined with nine other organizations in recommending a "user
education" approach to the issue of objectionable online
content, rather than relying on clumsy and often ineffective
filtering systems.
The joint statement cites the recent
federal court decision in the Loudoun County case, which found
that placing filters on all library computers violated the
First Amendment rights of adult patrons (see EPIC Alert 5.18).
The judge in that case (a former librarian) held that a
government body like a library "cannot avoid its
constitutional obligation by contracting out its
decisionmaking to a private entity" such as a software
vendor." The decision was issued two weeks after NCLIS held a
public hearing to discuss the use of Internet
filtering systems in libraries. The Library Commission has
said the purpose of its November hearing was "to hear
firsthand from experts on the problems and complex issues
arising from what NCLIS Vice Chair Martha Gould described as
the 'dark side of the Internet.'"
The NCLIS report on
"Kids and the Internet: The Promise and the Perils" is
expected to be released as early as the first week of
January.
The full text of the IFEA members' statement is
available at:
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on
December 3 that the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, a
law that requires states to limit the disclosure of motor
vehicle records, does not violate the
Tenth Amendment.
The state of Oklahoma had challenged
the DPPA as an unconstitutional infringement on state
sovereignty. The state relied on two prior decisions of the
Supreme Court that invalidated federal legislation which
"commandeers" state legislative and administrative processes.
The state also cited a Fourth Circuit decision that held that
the DPPA was unconstitutional because it regulated only the
activity of the states and was not a law of "general
application" that also covered private parties.
In an
opinion by Judge Bobby R. Baldock, the Tenth Circuit found
that, "the arguments against the DPPA are much less compelling
than the arguments against the statutes at issue" in the two
earlier cases. The court said:
[T]he DPPA does not
commandeer the state legislative process by requiring
states to enact legislation regulating the disclosure of
personal information from motor vehicle records. Rather,
the DPPA directly regulates the disclosure of such
information and preempts contrary state law. If states do not
wish to comply with those regulations, they may stop
disseminating information in their motor vehicle records to
the public.
The court further said:
In
enacting the DPPA, Congress obviously curtailed states'
prerogative to make choices respecting the release of motor
vehicle information. No one claims that Congress exceeded
the scope of its power under the Commerce Clause in so
doing. Nor has the Supreme Court ever suggested that
Congress impermissibly invades areas reserved to the
states under the Tenth Amendment because it exercises its
preemptive authority under the Commerce Clause in a
manner that displaces state law and policy to some
extent. The DPPA simply requires states to make a choice,
i.e. stop releasing personal information from state motor
vehicle records to the public, or release such
information consistent with the dictates of the DPPA.
The
split between the Tenth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit now
raises the prospect that the Supreme Court will be asked to
decide the constitutionality of the Drivers Privacy Protection
Act.
Oklahoma v. United States, No 97-6389 (CA10, Dec. 3,
1998)
http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-6389.htm
Con
don v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (CA4 1998)
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/sept98/972554.p.html
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision, issued a
proposed rule on December 7 to require banks to expand
monitoring of their customers activities and require banks
to report "suspicious" activities.
The new "Know Your
Customer" rules are intended to require banks to verify the
identity of their customers, determine the source of
their funds, determine "normal and expected transactions," and
report suspicious activities. Banks will require
identification from prospective customers which will include a
document containing a photograph and signature.
The new
rules have already generated significant protests. Nearly
3,000 comments from individuals opposing the new rules on
privacy grounds were submitted after the proposed regulation
was published. Many bankers are also concerned with the
proposal: "We think the regulation is by its very nature, at
odds with attempts to protect customer privacy," said Paul
Stock of the North Carolina Bankers Association.
The
proposal raises numerous issues: lack of accountability, lack
of recourse for customers -- no provision for customer review
and correction of data; no restrictions on secondary use of
the data. Furthermore, the cost of establishing this program
and monitoring accounts are also likely to be passed on to the
customer in new fees.
The FDIC acknowledges that
information gathered, if misused, could "result in an invasion
of a customer's privacy." While suggesting that the banks
should "integrate comprehensive privacy practices" into
these programs, they do not set out any privacy procedures or
limitations on its use.
Comments on the proposed rule
are due on March 8, 1998. The FDIC proposal is available
at:
http://www.fdic.gov/banknews/know.html
===================
==================================================== [5] CDC
Issues Guidelines on HIV
Tracking =====================================================
==================
The Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) issued new guidelines on December 10, 1998
recommending that health-care providers report the names of
individuals testing positive for the HIV virus.
The
proposed rule recommends that all states begin tracking HIV
cases and submit that information to the CDC. The proposed
rule does not require using the names of individuals with HIV
but does strongly recommend their use over a coded-name
system. Many AIDS groups who support coded systems believe
that the CDC will use the federal grants to encourage
name-based systems and that such systems discourage
people from getting tested because of fears over
discrimination. The proposed federal guidelines would still
permit anonymous HIV testing at clinics that do not provide
treatment and the CDC "strongly recommends" that states that
do not allow anonymous testing change their policies.
The
CDC is also recommending additional security and
confidentiality practices. The CDC requires that information
sent to the CDC is encrypted during transfer, kept in
physically secure locations, that the information is limited
and only used for HIV surveillance, that identifying
information is not used for other purposes, that states audit
usage and investigate breaches of confidentiality and
punish violations. CDC is also working with other groups to
develop a model state law on confidentiality.
Comments
on the proposed guidelines must be submitted by January
11, 1999. Comments can be submitted electronically to
hivmail@cdc.gov
More information on the guidelines can be
found at:
======
=================================================================
[6] Australia Announces Privacy Law for
Businesses ===================================================
====================
The Australian government announced
on December 16 that it is planning to introduce new
legislation to protect the privacy of individuals' information
held by companies. The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, and
the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, announced that the law will
be based on creating enforceable industry codes.
The
new legislation will be based on eight privacy principles
developed by the Privacy Commissioner and roughly modeled
after the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines. The principles are
Collection, Use and Disclosure, Data Quality, Data Security,
Openness, Access and Correction, Identifiers, Anonymity,
Transborder Data Flows, and Sensitive Information. Industry
will then create codes that will be legally enforceable.
Exceptions for employee records and journalists will
be included.
The announcement marks another turnabout
for the Australian government on privacy policy. In 1996,
following the party's campaign promise, the Attorney General
recommended adopting privacy laws for the private sector but
was overruled by the Prime Minister after heavy lobbying
by the banking industry. Since then, consumer and privacy
advocates have been effective in keeping the issue alive and
have been successful in advancing state-level laws on privacy.
Groups such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
and the Smart Card Forum expressed support for national
legislation because of concerns about the European Union's
privacy directive limiting flows of data and the
recent announcement by the State of Victoria that if the
federal government did not adopt a law covering the privatesector, it would enact one itself.
Australia joins a
growing number of non-EU countries that have moved recently to
develop comprehensive privacy legislation.
The Privacy
Principles are available at:
http://www.privacy.gov.au/news/p6_4_1.html
More
information on Australian privacy is available at:
Browse the cyber shelves of good books
on privacy, free speech, and civil liberties at the Internet's
only bookstore devoted to online freedom. Shipping, discounts,
and gift wrapping provided. And there's still time to purchase
a gift for that special someone (or yourself!) in time for
Christmas. Here are some last minute gift ideas from
EPIC:
** Books **
Private Matters: In Defense of
the Personal Life by Janna Malamud Smith (Perseus Press,
1997)
"... both a personal rumination and a gorgeously
written anecdotal cultural history of the emergence and the
fragile sanctity of the modern creative self, and of the
development of the right to close the door, pull the shade and
shut out the gaze of the community." (The New York Times Book
Review, Richard A. Shweder)
Speech Stories: How Free Can
Speech Be? by Randall P. Bezanson (New York University Press,
232 pages 1998)
This book brings to life seven of the most
significant free speech cases of the past twenty-five years.
In each case, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the
appropriate scope of the First Amendment. But the story behind
the story is the story here. And before the footnotes and
headnotes appeared in legal opinions, there were slogans
on jackets, flags on fire, and names missing from
pamphlets.
** Videos **
Brazil (DVD
VHS)
A wildly imaginative Orwellian comedy about a future
society in which a central bureaucracy regulates everything
via endless airducts, tubes and plumbing. A typographical
error plunges an average man into a Kafkaesque nightmare of
bureaucracy and brainwashing. DeNiro plays a heroic non-union
plumber unplugging the stopped-up pipes. Academy
Award Nominations: Best (Original) Screenplay, Best Art
Direction-Set Decoration. (Amazon review)
(United
Artists, 1985) R
Gattaca (DVD)
In the 21st century,
genetic engineering makes possible the creation
of biologically superior human specimens ("valids"), who then
grow to positions of power and prestige. Would-be astronaut
Vincent, born the old-fashioned way, can only hope for a
janitorial position at the elite Gattaca Corporation--until he
buys the blood, urine, and identity of a perfect but paralyzed
athlete. But a murder in the company's ranks attracts the
attention of a detective who threatens to sniff Vincent out. A
slick futuristic thriller. Academy Award Nominations--Best
Art Direction. Stars Ethan Hawke, Uma
Thurman.
(Columbia/Tristar Studios, 1997) PG
These
and other titles are available for purchase online at the
EPIC Bookstore:
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/
===========================
============================================ [8] Upcoming
Conferences and
Events =======================================================
================
1999 RSA Data Security Conference.
January 18-21, 1999. San Jose, CA. Sponsored by RSA. Contact:
http://www.rsa.com/conf99/
FC '99 Third Annual Conference
on Financial Cryptography. February 22-25, 1999. Anguilla,
B.W.I. Contact: http://fc99.ai/
Electronic Commerce and
Privacy Legislation -- Building Trust and Confidence. February
23, 1999. Ottawa, Canada. Sponsored by Riley Information
Services.
http://www.rileyis.com/seminars/Feb99/
Communitarian
Summit. February 27-28, 1999. Arlington, Virginia. Contact:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps
1999 ASAP Western Regional
Training Conference. February 28 - March 3, 1999. Portland,
Oregon. Contact: http://www.podi.com/asap/
"CYBERSPACE
1999: Crime, Criminal Justice and the Internet". 29 & 30 March
1999. York, UK. Sponsored by the British and Irish
Legal Education Technology Association (BILETA).
http://www.bileta.ac.uk/
Computers, Freedom and Privacy
(CFP) '99. April 6-8, 1999. Washington, DC. Sponsored by ACM.
Call for proposals available.
Contact: http://www.cfp99.org/
1999 EPIC Cryptography
and Privacy Conference. June 7, 1999. Washington, DC.
Sponsored by EPIC. Contact: info@epic.org
Cryptography &
International Protection of Human Rights (CIPHR'99). 9-13
August 1999. Lake Balaton, Hungary.
Contact: http://www.cryptorights.org/
=================
====================================================== Subscri
ption
Information ==================================================
=====================
The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly
publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To
subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to epic-news@epic.org
with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes) or "unsubscribe". A
Web-based form is available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/subscribe.html
Back issues are
available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/
===============================
======================================== 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 is
sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a
non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil
liberties and constitutional rights. EPIC publishes the EPIC
Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and
conducts policy research. For more information, e-mail
info@epic.org, http://www.epic.org or write EPIC,
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1
202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax).
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 "The Fund for
Constitutional Government" and sent to EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania
Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington DC 20003.
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
regulation of encryption and expanding wiretapping
powers.
Thank you for your support.
---------------------- END EPIC Alert 5.20
-----------------------