Latest News - July 16, 2013
EPIC has sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee describing EPIC's response to the NSA domestic surveillance program in anticipation of a hearing on FISA oversight. "In our view, the secret court simply lacks the legal authority to authorize this program of domestic surveillance," EPIC writes. EPIC has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Verizon Order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. EPIC is also petitioning the NSA to create public rules governing its surveillance authorities. For more information, see In Re EPIC and EPIC: NSA Petition.
The Department of Justice has issued a report outlining the department's revised rules for obtaining records from journalists. The change in policy comes after the controversy concerning the Justice Department's subpoena of Associated Press calling records. The new rules establish a presumption that reporters will be notified when their records are sought and also raises the legal standard for access under the [3]Privacy Protection Act of 1980[/3], a law that is intended to protect journalists' records from government access. Following the AP controversy, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the legal basis for the Justice Department's subpoena of reporters' phone records. For more information, see EPIC: Free Flow of Information Act and EPIC: Privacy Protection Act.
EPIC, joined by over 2,000 members of the public, leading privacy experts, and journalists, has again petitioned the National Security Agency, urging the suspension of the NSA domestic surveillance program pending public comments. EPIC, joined by leading privacy experts including James Bamford, Whitfield Diffie, and Bruce Schneier, first petitioned the agency on June 17, 2013. Because the NSA has failed to respond, EPIC has renewed the petition on a weekly basis. EPIC's petition states "NSA's collection of domestic communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended." EPIC's petition further states that NSA's domestic surveillance "substantively affects the public to a degree sufficient to implicate the policy interests" that require public comment, and that "NSA's collection of domestic communications absent the opportunity for public comment is unlawful." By law, the NSA is required to respond. EPIC intends to renew its request for a public rule making each week until the NSA responds. For more information and to join EPIC’s petition, see EPIC: NSA Petition also #NSApetition.
In extensive comments, EPIC has urged the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board not to weaken the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Sunshine Act as the agency has proposed. According to EPIC, the Board proposes to adopt vague, broad, and otherwise unlawful definitions that would permit the oversight agency to withhold information and delay document production. The proposed regulations would also allow the Board to encourage other agencies to classify information. The Board proposes to terminate public participation in Board meetings "at any time for any reason." EPIC routinely comments on agency proposals that impact the rights of FOIA requesters. In 2011, EPIC submitted extensive comments to the Department of Justice, warning the agency not to erect new obstacles for FOIA requesters. For more information, see EPIC: Open Government.
EPIC filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Samsung, the publisher of a mobile app for Jay-Z's new album "Magna Carta Holy Grail." The Magna Carta App collects massive amounts of personal information from users, including location data and data pulled from other accounts and other apps on the users phones. The Magna Carta app also includes hidden spam techniques that force users to promote the album. Well known music critic John Pareles wrote "Jay-Z Is Watching, and He Knows Your Friends." EPIC asked the Commission to require Samsung to suspend the distribution of the app until the privacy problems are fixed and to implement the privacy protections contained in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. Previously, EPIC filed an FTC complaint against Snapchat, the publisher of a mobile app that falsely claimed to delete photos and videos "forever." For more information, see EPIC: Federal Trade Commission.
EPIC, in a prepared statement, addressed the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding NSA surveillance under the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at day long workshop. Retired Judge James Robertson, who served on the FISA Court, told the panel that he was "stunned" by the news that the government was collecting all of the telephone records of Americans. EPIC, which has recently filed a challenge to the domestic surveillance program with the Supreme Court, recommended increased public reporting for FISA and new limitations on the authority of the FISA court. EPIC previously provided recommendations to the Board for future work. Several of the recommendations were incorporated in the Board's semi-annual report. For more information, see EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and EPIC: NSA Petition.
EPIC has filed a Petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court vacate an unlawful order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that enables the collection of all domestic phone record by the NSA. The order, directed to Verizon, requires the production of all "call detail records" for calls made "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls." EPIC said "It is simply not possible that every phone record in the possession of a telecommunications firm could be relevant to an authorized investigation. . . . Such an interpretation of [the law] would render meaningless the qualifying phrases contained in the provision and eviscerate the purpose of the Act." For more information, see In re Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Privacy International, a leading privacy organization based in London, filed a legal complaint today with a UK tribunal about the recently disclosed surveillance programs. Privacy International asserts that the NSA and its United Kingdom counterpart, GCHQ, have been conducting dragnet surveillance of American and British citizens, without any public accountability. PI also charges that by accessing the NSA's information pool, the British government is acting outside the rule of law. EPIC today filed a petition in the US Supreme Court, alleging that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court exceeded its legal authority when it issued the order to Verizon to turn over all of the phone records of its customers. For more information, see EPIC: NSA Petition and EPIC: NSA - Verizon Phone Record Monitoring.
The European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly (483 to 98, with 65 abstentions) to investigate "PRISM" and other surveillance programs of the US National Security Agency. (Press release.) The investigation with be undertaken by the influential Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs ("LIBE"). Members of Parliament also urged European representatives to reexamine current arrangements that allow the transfer of banking and travel data from EU countries to the United States. The resolution was adopted as the European Union is considering a new trade deal with the United States and a proposal to strengthen privacy protections is pending. EPIC has appeared several times before the European Parliament to urge the adoption of a comprehensive privacy framework to safeguard the transatlantic transfer of personal information. For more information, see EPIC - EU Data Protection Directive, and Madrid Privacy Declaration.
The Senate has passed an expansive immigration bill that includes employment verification by the federal government for all U.S. employees -- "E-Verify" -- within five years. In testimony before Congress, EPIC warned of inaccurate employment determinations in the E-Verify system and said that Privacy Act safeguards must be strengthened to ensure fairness and accountability. In June 2011, EPIC filed comments with the Department of Homeland Security in opposition to the expansion of E-Verify. For more information, see EPIC: E-Verify and Privacy and EPIC: Spotlight on Surveillance - E-verify System.
Almost 2,000 members of the public have joined EPIC's petition to the National Security Agency, urging the suspension of the NSA domestic surveillance program pending public comment. EPIC, joined by leading privacy experts including James Bamford, Whitfield Diffie, and Bruce Schneier, first petitioned the agency on June 17, 2013. EPIC's petition states "NSA's collection of domestic communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended." EPIC's petition further states that NSA's domestic surveillance "substantively affects the public to a degree sufficient to implicate the policy interests" that require public comment, and that "NSA's collection of domestic communications absent the opportunity for public comment is unlawful." EPIC intends to renew its request each week until the NSA responds. For more information and to join EPIC’s petition, see EPIC: NSA Petition.
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has issued the the 2012 Wiretap Report. The annual report, provides comprehensive data on all federal and state wiretap applications, including the types of crimes investigated, as well as the costs involved and whether arrests or convictions resulted. In contrast, the annual report from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court provides almost no information about a surveillance authority that is routinely directed toward the American public. According to the 2012 Wiretap Report, 3,395 intercept orders were issued in 2012. Of these orders, 3,292 (97%) targeted "portable devices" and 7 were "roving" taps to target individuals using multiple devices. The vast majority (87%) of wiretaps were issued in narcotics investigations, though some involved multiple offenses. In 2012, installed wiretaps were in operation for an average of 39 days, 3 days below the average in 2011. Encryption was reported for 15 wiretaps in 2012 and for 7 wiretaps conducted during previous years. In four of these wiretaps, officials were unable to decipher the plain text of the messages. This is the first time that jurisdictions have reported that encryption prevented officials from obtaining the plain text of the communications since the Administrative Office began collecting encryption data in 2001.There were 3,743 arrests related to these intercepts, which resulted in 455 (12%) convictions. EPIC maintains a comprehensive index of the annual wiretap reports and FISA reports. For more information, see EPIC: Title III Wiretap Orders - Stats, EPIC: Wiretapping, and EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Top News Archive
Take Action
Sign EPIC's Petition To Stop NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program
"the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Upcoming Events
"The Future of Commerce"
Marc Rotenberg,
EPIC President
Aspen Institute
Aspen, CO
July 14-17, 2013
____________________
"The Snitch In Your Pocket"
Alan Butler,
EPIC Appellate Advocacy Counsel
Chautauqua Institution
Chautauqua, NY
July 17, 2013
____________________
#PrivChat
Amie Stepanovich
EPIC Associate Litigation Counsel
Director, EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project
July 16, 2013
More EPIC Events...
EPIC in the News
Privacy group calls for FTC investigation of Jay-Z app
Los Angeles Times
July 15, 2013
____________________
The Petition for Immediate Supreme Court Review of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Order Raises Thorny Procedural Issues
Justia
July 15, 2013
____________________
Jay-Z App, Amazon Extension Slammed On Privacy
InformationWeek
July 15, 2013
More EPIC in the News...
Recent EPIC Events
EPIC 2013 Champion of Freedom Awards Dinner
Washington, D.C.
June 03, 2013
____________________
"EPIC - Drones and Domestic Surveillance"
National Press Club
Washington, D.C.
9-11 a.m.
Jan. 15, 2013
____________________
EPIC Champion of Freedom Awards
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
Charlie Rose: NSA Surveillance
____________________
View EPIC Video
View EPIC Video in HD
____________________
Top Secret America
____________________
Economist: Privacy VIdeo
Previous Video Archive...
EPIC Docket Highlights
EPIC Cases
EPIC Amicus Briefs:
- Upcoming Cases of Interest to EPIC
- Pending Cases with EPIC briefs
- Decided cases with EPIC briefs
- Maryland v. King (U.S. 2013) (Warrantless Collection of DNA From Arrestees)
- Jennings v. Broome (U.S. 2013) (Whether ECPA Prohibits Unauthorized Access to Cloud E-mail)
- McBurney v. Young (U.S. 2013) (State FOI Restrictions)
- CREW v. FEC (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Adequate Response to FOIA Request)
- Florida v. Harris (U.S. 2013) (Reliability of Investigative Techniques)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA (U.S. 2013) (Standing to Challenge Broad Surveillance Programs)
- United States v. Hamilton (4th Cir. 2012) (Workplace Privacy)
- First American v. Edwards (U.S. 2012) (Standing)
- United States v. Jones (U.S. 2012) (GPS Tracking)
- FAA v. Cooper (U.S. 2011) (Privacy Act Damages)
- FCC v. AT&T; (U.S. 2011) (FOIA)
- IMS Health v. Sorrell (U.S. 2011) (Medical Privacy)
- NASA v. Nelson (U.S. 2011) (Employee Privacy)
- Tolentino v. New York (U.S. 2011) (Police Searches)
- Chicago Tribune v. Univ. of Illinois (7th Cir. 2011) (FERPA)
- Doe v. Luzerne County (3rd Cir., 2011) (Informational Privacy)
- United States v. Pool (9th Cir., 2011) (DNA)
- G.D. v. Kenny (N.J. S.Ct., 2011) (Expungement)
- In re Google Street View (N.D. Cal. 2011) (Wiretap Act)
- Doe v. Reed (U.S. 2010) (Petition Signatures)
- City of Ontario v. Quon (U.S. 2010) (Workplace Privacy)
- Bunnell v. MPAA (9th Cir., 2010) (Wiretap)
- Harris v. Blockbuster (5th Cir., 2010) (Facebook Privacy)
- IMS Health v. Ayotte (1st Cir., 2010) (Medical privacy)
- Ostergren v. McDonnell (4th Cir., 2010) (Identity Theft)
- SEC v. Galleon (2nd Cir., 2010) (Wiretapping)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States (U.S. 2009) (ID Theft)
- Herring v. United States (U.S. 2009) (Errors in databases)
- NCTA v. FCC (D.C. Cir., 2009) (Phone records privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Connolly (Mass. Sup. J. Ct., 2009) (GPS Tracking)
- ABA v. Brown (9th Cir., 2009) (Financial Privacy)
- Crawford v. Marion County (U.S. 2008) (Voter ID)
- Hepting v. AT&T; (9th Cir., 2007) (Wiretap)
- Peterson v. NTIA (4th Cir., 2007) (WHOIS data)
- New Jersey v. Reid (N.J. S.Ct., 2007) (ISP subscriber privacy)
- In re Marriage of [Redacted] (D. Co., 2009) (Telephone Record Privacy)
- Gilmore v. Gonzales (9th Cir., 2006) (Secrecy)
- Kohler v. Englade (5th Cir., 2006) (DNA)
- Johnson v. Quander (U.S. Cert., 2006) (DNA)
- ACLU v. DOD (2nd Cir., 2005) (Secrecy)
- Gonzales v. Doe (2nd Cir., 2005) (Wiretap)
- United States v. Councilman (5th Cir., 2005) (Wiretap)
- Google Books Settlement (S.D.N.Y., 2005) (Copyright and Google Privacy)
- Forensic Advisors, Inc. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (Maryland Ct. App., 2005) (Subscriber List Privacy)
- Doe v. Chao (U.S. 2004) (Privacy Act)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., Humbolt County (U.S. 2004) (Anonymity)
- Kehoe v. Fidelity Bank (11th Cir., 2004) (Driver Privacy Protection Act)
- United States v. Kincade (9th Cir., 2004) (DNA)
- BATF v. Chicago (U.S. 2003) (FOIA)
- Smith v. Doe (U.S. 2003) (Megan's Law)
- RIAA v. Verizon (D.C. Cir., 2003) (Copyright Subpoena Privacy)
- Watchtower Bible v. Stratton (U.S. 2002) (Anonymity, First Amendment)
- Remsburg v. Docusearch (N.H. S.Ct., 2002) (Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act)
- In re Sealed Case (FISCR 2002) (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance – Criminal Investigations)
- United States v. Bach (8th Cir., 2002) (Warrant-by-Fax)
- Paramount Pictures v. ReplayTV (C.D. Cal., 2002) (TV-DVR User Privacy)
- US West v. FCC (U.S. Cert. 2000) (Telephone Subscriber Privacy)
- Junger v. Daley (N.D. Ohio, 1998) (Crypto – Export Controls)
- Reno v. Condon (U.S. 2000) (Driver Privacy Protection Act)
- Bernstein v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (9th Cir., 1999) (Crypto – Export Controls)
Privacy Campaigns
EPIC's 2010 E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Report
____________________
____________________
Internet Privacy Infographic
____________________
EPIC FOIA Note #20: 
