[EPIC NEWS] EPIC Alert 27.10

EPIC Alert 27.10 July 13, 2020 View this email in your browser (epic.org/alert/epic_alert_27.10.html) Defend Privacy. Support EPIC. (epic.org/support) EPIC Alert Defend Privacy. Support EPIC. (epic.org/donate/)
** EPIC Alert 27.10 – July 13, 2020 ———————————————————— 1. Supreme Court Preserves Anti-Robocall Law, Strikes Down Government Debt Exception 2. Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Shield Tax Returns 3. Amicus Brief: Civil Litigants Must Be Able to Challenge FISA Surveillance 4. Following Order in EPIC Case, AI Commission Announces First Public Meeting 5. EPIC, Coalition to Congress: Stop Use of and Investment in Facial Recognition 6. News in Brief 7. EPIC in the News 8. EPIC Bookstore 9. Upcoming Conferences and Events
** 1. Supreme Court Preserves Anti-Robocall Law, Strikes Down Government Debt Exception ————————————————————
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/aapc/AAPC-v-Barr-SCOTUS-Opinion.pdf) last week that the government debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protect Act (epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/) violates the First Amendment—but the court severed the exception, preserving the law’s important privacy protections. EPIC filed an amicus brief (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/aapc/EPIC-Amicus-Barr-v-AAPC.pdf) in the case defending the TCPA.
The case, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/aapc/) , concerned a First Amendment challenge to the federal law that protects consumers from robocalls. The case also raised a question about how much of a statute a court should strike down when a statutory exception violates the First Amendment.
“Americans passionately disagree about many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls,” the Court wrote in its opinion. “Six Members of the Court today conclude that Congress has impermissibly favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech, in violation of the First Amendment. . . . [P]laintiffs still may not make political robocalls to cell phones, but their speech is now treated equally with debt-collection speech. ”
EPIC, in its amicus brief, argued that the robocall ban is “constitutionally permissible and serves important governmental interests.” EPIC explained that cell phone adoption has made “the harm caused by unwanted automated calls” greater than when the robocall ban was enacted in 1991. EPIC said that “without the autodialer ban, the assault of unwanted calls could make cell phones unusable.” EPIC also argued that “a minor amendment to an otherwise constitutional law, passed decades after the original enactment, should not take down an act of Congress.”
EPIC frequently files amicus briefs on the TCPA (epic.org/amicus/index.php?s=Telephone+Consumer+Protection+Act) , including in the related case, Gallion v. Charter Communications (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/gallion/) .
** 2. Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Shield Tax Returns ————————————————————
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf) on Thursday that the State of New York can seek to obtain President Trump’s tax returns from the President’s accounting firm in a criminal grand jury proceeding. The Court in its decision from Trump v. Vance (epic.org/amicus/trump-taxes/) rejected the President’s attempt to block the grand jury subpoena.
“Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” the Court wrote. “We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.”
EPIC filed an amicus brief (epic.org/amicus/trump-taxes/Trump-v-Vance-EPIC-Amicus.pdf) in the case supporting disclosure. EPIC explained that President Trump broke with 40 years of precedent by concealing his tax records, even as he sought to collect sensitive voter (epic.org/privacy/litigation/voter/epic-v-commission/) and citizenship (epic.org/privacy/litigation/pia/epic-v-commerce/) data from the public.
“This is inverted liberty: privacy for the President and compelled disclosure of personal data for the public,” EPIC argued. “That is antithetical to the structure and practice of modern democracies which safeguard the privacy of citizens and impose transparency obligations on political leaders, most notably the President.”
EPIC previously sought public release of President Trump’s tax returns in EPIC v. IRS (epic.org/foia/irs/trump-taxes/) , arguing that disclosure was necessary (epic.org/foia/irs/trump-taxes/#6103(k)(3)) to correct numerous factual misstatements made by the President. In EPIC v. IRS II (epic.org/foia/irs/trump-taxes-ii/) , EPIC is seeking “offers-in-compromise (epic.org/foia/irs/trump-taxes-ii/#background) ” and related tax records of President Trump and his businesses.
** 3. Amicus Brief: Civil Litigants Must Be Able to Challenge FISA Surveillance ————————————————————
EPIC has joined a coalition of organizations from across the political spectrum—EFF, Americans for Prosperity, the Brennan Center, FreedomWorks, and TechFreedom—in urging (epic.org/amicus/fisa/wikimedia/Wikimedia-v-NSA-4th-Cir-MSJ-Amicus-EFF-EPIC-et-al.pdf) a federal appeals court to revive a challenge to an NSA surveillance program (epic.org/privacy/surveillance/fisa/) .
A lower court in the case, Wikimedia v. NSA (epic.org/amicus/fisa/wikimedia/) , found that Wikimedia could not demonstrate that its communications had actually been intercepted under the Upstream surveillance program—and that further litigation was barred for national security reasons. But the coalition told the appeals court that “it is critical that those directly affected by mass foreign intelligence surveillance be able to obtain judicial review” because “FISA is broken.”
“The avenues for judicial review of FISA surveillance that exist outside of civil litigation . . . are unreliable and are not functioning as Congress intended,” the coalition wrote. “Access to the courts through civil litigation is thus a critical safeguard for the vindication of constitutional rights implicated by foreign intelligence surveillance.”
EPIC has participated as amicus in several previous cases challenging FISA surveillance, including Smith v. Obama (epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/smith/) and Clapper v. Amnesty International (epic.org/amicus/fisa/clapper/) . EPIC also brought the first challenge to the NSA telephone records surveillance program, In re EPIC (epic.org/privacy/nsa/in-re-epic/) , in the U.S. Supreme Court.
** 4. Following Order in EPIC Case, AI Commission Announces First Public Meeting ————————————————————
The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (www.nscai.gov/about) will hold its first public plenary meeting (www.nscai.gov/faca) on July 20, the Commission said (https://twitter.com/AiCommission/status/1280238921268543489) last week. The announcement comes after a ruling (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-v-AI-Commission-19-2906-Memorandum-Opinion-060120.pdf) in EPIC v. AI Commission (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/) that the Commission is subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title5/pdf/USCODE-2012-title5-app-federalad.pdf) (FACA).
The AI Commission is charged with developing recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence in national security and defense contexts. But after the Commission conducted much of its work in secret and without public input, EPIC filed an open government lawsuit (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-v-AI-Commission-19-2906-Complaint-092719.pdf) against the Commission last year.
In December, Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-v-AI-Commission-19-2906-memorandum-opinion-120319.pdf) the AI Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and must disclose records requested by EPIC. Then in June, Judge McFadden held that the Commission is also subject to the FACA and ordered the Commission to hold open meetings. “Today, the Court holds that Congress can and did impose Janus-like transparency obligations upon the AI Commission,” Judge McFadden wrote. “No rule of law forced Congress to choose just one.”
EPIC has obtained thousands of pages (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/#foiaproduction) of records from the AI Commission and will continue to monitor the Commission’s activities in the future. Registration information for the Commission’s July 20 meeting can be found here (www.eventbrite.com/x/nscai-2nd-quarter-plenary-meeting-registration-112662187636) . The case is EPIC v. AI Commission (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/) , No. 19-2906 (D.D.C.).
** 5. EPIC, Coalition to Congress: Stop Use of and Investment in Facial Recognition ————————————————————
EPIC and a coalition privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights groups urged (epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/FRT-Moratorium-and-Divestment-Coalition-Letter-July2020.pdf) Congress this month to “take action to prevent the harms associated with face recognition and other invasive and discriminatory surveillance technologies.”
The coalition statement called on Congress to pass the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2020 (www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/acial%20Recognition%20and%20Biometric%20Technology%20Moratorium%20Act.pdf) , cease funding police use of invasive and discriminatory technologies, and ensure policing reform bills prevent the use of facial recognition on body cameras and dash cams.
Facial recognition “gives government agencies the unprecedented power to track who we are, where we go, and who we know” and “has been deployed largely in secret, undermining principles of democratic governance,” the statement read. “[A]s we have already seen, the harms associated with this technology will likely fall disproportionately on communities of color.”
Last year, EPIC launched a campaign to Ban Face Surveillance (epic.org/banfacesurveillance/) and through the Public Voice coalition (thepublicvoice.org/ban-facial-recognition/) gathered the support (thepublicvoice.org/ban-facial-recognition/endorsement/) of over 100 organizations and many leading experts across 30 plus countries. EPIC previously testified (epic.org/testimony/congress/EPIC-FacialRecognitionMoratorium-MA-Oct2019.pdf) before the Massachusetts Legislature in support of a bill to establish a moratorium on the use of facial recognition (epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/) by state agencies.
** News in Brief ————————————————————
** EPIC Hosts Panel on Algorithmic Risk Assessments ————————————————————
EPIC recently hosted Liberty At Risk, an event focused on pre-trial algorithmic risk assessment tools. EPIC was joined by Sean Hill, Visiting Assistant Professor at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Vincent Southerland, Executive Director at the NYU Law Center for Race, Inequality and the Law; and Megan Stevenson, Associate Professor at University of Virginia School of Law. The panelists discussed how risk assessments further encode systemic biases and offered guidance for advocates navigating bail reform and the use of these tools. A video of the panel is available here (https://vimeo.com/436600143) . EPIC maintains a resource (epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/crim-justice/) tracking the use of Criminal Justice algorithms.
** EPIC Seeks Release of Records About Election Cybersecurity ————————————————————
EPIC and a coalition of privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights groups recently urged (epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/FRT-Moratorium-and-Divestment-Coalition-Letter-July2020.pdf) Congress to “take action to prevent the harms associated with face recognition and other invasive and discriminatory surveillance technologies.” The Coalition called upon Congress to pass the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2020 (www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/acial%20Recognition%20and%20Biometric%20Technology%20Moratorium%20Act.pdf) , cease funding police use of invasive and discriminatory technologies, and ensure policing reform bills prevent the use of facial recognition on body cameras and dash cams. Last year, EPIC launched a campaign to Ban Face Surveillance (epic.org/banfacesurveillance/) and through the Public Voice coalition (thepublicvoice.org/ban-facial-recognition/) gathered the support (thepublicvoice.org/ban-facial-recognition/endorsement/) of over 100 organizations and many leading experts across 30 plus countries. EPIC previously testified (epic.org/testimony/congress/EPIC-FacialRecognitionMoratorium-MA-Oct2019.pdf) before the Massachusetts Legislature in support of a bill to establish a moratorium on the use of facial recognition (epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/) by state agencies.
** Court Demands Answers From Justice Department in EPIC Mueller Report Case ————————————————————
A federal court, as part of an open government lawsuit (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/) brought by EPIC, has ordered (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/epic-v-doj-19-810-order-070620.pdf) the Department of Justice to answer a series of questions concerning the DOJ’s redactions to the Mueller Report. Judge Reggie B. Walton recently announced (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/EPIC-v-DOJ-19-810-ex-parte-hearing-order-060820.pdf) that he could not “assess the merits of certain redactions without further representations from the Department” and ordered the DOJ to attend an “ex parte (www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_parte) ” (one-on-one), now scheduled for August 17. Under the court’s new order, the DOJ is also required to file written answers later this month. Both Judge Walton’s questions and the DOJ’s responses will be sealed from the public, the court stated. EPIC’s case—the first in the nation for the disclosure of the Mueller Report—is EPIC v. DOJ (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/) , No. 19-810.
** EPIC Obtains Additional Records from AI Commission ————————————————————
EPIC, as part of the open government case EPIC v. AI Commission (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/) , has obtained more documents (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/#foiaproduction) from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Among the records is a report (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-19-09-11-NSCAI-FOIA-20200529-5th-Production-pt1-Commission-Best-Practices-Briefing.pdf) concerning best practices for advisory commissions that was delivered to the AI Commission in early 2019. Notably, the report contains no recommendations about transparency or public participation in the Commission’s work. A federal court recently ruled (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-v-AI-Commission-19-2906-Memorandum-Opinion-060120.pdf) in EPIC’s case that the AI Commission is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title5/pdf/USCODE-2012-title5-app-federalad.pdf) . Judge Trevor N. McFadden ordered the Commission to hold open meetings and regularly publish its records in the future. Judge McFadden previously ruled (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-v-AI-Commission-19-2906-memorandum-opinion-120319.pdf) that the AI Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and the Commission began disclosing (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/#foiaproduction) its prior records in January. The case is EPIC v. AI Commission (epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/) , No. 19-2906 (D.D.C.).
** Senate Judiciary Committee Approves EARN IT Act ————————————————————
The Senate Judiciary has unanimously approved (www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/chairman-graham-applauds-senate-judiciary-committee-for-unanimously-approving-the-earn-it-act) the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020 (www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Graham‘s%20Amendment%20To%20S.3398%20-%20OLL20670.pdf) (S. 3398) by a vote of 22-0. In a statement (epic.org/testimony/congress/EPIC-SJC-EARNIT-Mar2020.pdf) to the Committee on a previous version of the EARN IT Act, EPIC supported both end-to-end encryption and reform to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. EPIC pointed out that actual end-to-end encryption “protects users, promotes commerce, and ensures cybersecurity.” The Committee adopted an amendment (www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Leahy%20Amendment%20to%20S.%203398%20-%20OLL20683.pdf) from Senator Patrick Leahy that clarified that companies that provide end-to-end encryption are not subject to liability because they cannot access user communications. In an amicus brief in Herrick v. Grindr (epic.org/amicus/230/grindr) , EPIC objected to a court decision that found “online platforms bear no responsibility for the harassment and abuse their systems enable.”
** Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Maine Broadband Privacy Law ————————————————————
A federal court has rejected (epic.org/privacy/ACA-Connects-v-Frey-20-55-Order-070720.pdf) a challenge from internet services providers to Maine’s broadband privacy law (legislature.maine.gov/statutes/35-A/title35-Asec9301-3.html) . Enacted last year, the law prohibits broadband providers from using, disclosing, or selling consumers’ personal data without express consent. The ISPs had argued that the Maine law conflicted with Congress’s 2017 overturning (epic.org/2017/04/trump-repeals-broadband-privac.html) of broadband privacy rules (apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1_Rcd.pdf) issued by the Federal Communications Commission and the FCC’s 2018 disclaimer (www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order) of regulatory authority over broadband providers. But the ISPs’ “attempt to manufacture a conflict in this case is unavailing,” Judge Lance E. Walker wrote. The court also refused to hold that the Maine law violates the First Amendment or is unconstitutionally vague. EPIC has long advocated for comprehensive privacy legislation (epic.org/GradingOnACurve/) that would protect states’ ability to enact stronger privacy laws.
** ACM Calls for Immediate Suspension of Facial Recognition ————————————————————
The Association of Computing Machinery’s U.S. Technology Policy Committee (www.acm.org/public-policy/ustp) recently published a statement (www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy/ustpc-facial-recognition-tech-statement.pdf) calling for the “immediate suspension of the current and future private and governmental use of FR technologies in all circumstances known or reasonably foreseeable to be prejudicial to established human and legal rights.” The statement notes that facial recognition technology “often compromise[s] fundamental human and legal rights of individuals to privacy, employment, justice and personal liberty.” Last year, EPIC filed a complaint (epic.org/privacy/ftc/hirevue/EPIC_FTC_HireVue_Complaint.pdf) with the FTC against HireVue for the company’s unfair and deceptive practices involving the use of facial recognition technology in evaluating job applicants. EPIC has launched a campaign to Ban Face Surveillance (epic.org/banfacesurveillance/) and through the Public Voice coalition (thepublicvoice.org/ban-facial-recognition/) gathered the support (thepublicvoice.org/ban-facial-recognition/endorsement/) of over 100 organizations and many leading experts across 30 plus countries. EPIC supports the recently introduced Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act (www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/acial%20Recognition%20and%20Biometric%20Technology%20Moratorium%20Act.pdf) , which would prohibit the use of facial recognition and other biometric technologies by federal agencies.
** Supreme Court to Hear Congressional Mueller Report Case ————————————————————
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case (www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1328.html) this fall over a Congressional subpoena for the complete Mueller Report, the Court announced (www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070220zor_apl1.pdf) last week. The Court will review a decision (www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E5DEA16F3BB4D8BD8525852700599D47/$file/19-5288-1832741.pdf) by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in March that the House Judiciary Committee was entitled to redacted grand jury material from the Report. EPIC is currently litigating a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/) for disclosure of the complete Mueller Report. EPIC’s suit led to the disclosure (epic.org/2020/06/breaking-justice-department-re.html) of new material from the Report last month. Judge Reggie B. Walton is also conducting an “in camera (www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_camera) ” review of the complete Mueller Report following the court’s March 5 ruling (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/EPIC-v-DOJ-19-810-memorandum-opinion-030520.pdf) in EPIC’s case. The court is expected to decide this (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/EPIC-v-DOJ-19-810-ex-parte-hearing-order-060820.pdf) summer whether more material must be released. EPIC’s case—the first in the nation for the disclosure of the Mueller Report—is EPIC v. DOJ (epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/) , No. 19-810.
** Supreme Court to Decide Scope of Robocall Ban ————————————————————
Just days after upholding (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/aapc/) the federal robocall ban against a First Amendment challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed (www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070920zor_i425.pdf) to decide the scope of the ban in a new case, Duguid v. Facebook. Following the D.C. Circuit’s invalidation (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/aca-international/) of the FCC’s definition of an “autodialer”—the technology companies use to automatically dial vast numbers of consumers— federal appeals courts have split on how to interpret the term. Telemarketers argue that an autodialer must generate random or sequential numbers, while consumers and consumer groups like EPIC maintain that the law bans systems that automatically call numbers from lists. In Gadelhak v. AT&T (epic.org/amicus/tcpa/gadelhak/) , EPIC argued that adopting the telemarketers’ autodialer definition “would undermine the law’s effectiveness by inviting easy circumvention and rendering the restriction obsolete.” EPIC routinely files amicus briefs (epic.org/amicus/index.php?s=Telephone+Consumer+Protection+Act) in cases on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/) .
** EPIC in the News ———————————————————— * Mueller Called It: Trump Got the Testimony He Wanted, Then Commutes Stone’s Sentence (www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/mueller-called-it-trump-got-testimony-he-wanted-then-commutes-stones-sentence) , Vanity Fair, July 11, 2020 * The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems (www.lawfareblog.com/roger-stone-commutation-even-more-corrupt-it-seems) , Lawfare, July 11, 2020 * U.S. Government Online Surveillance Needs Court Look, Groups Say (news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/u-s-government-online-surveillance-needs-court-look-groups-say) , Bloomberg Law, July 10, 2020 * The Fundamentals of Facial Recognition Technology (medium.com/the-scitech-scoop/the-fundamentals-of-facial-recognition-technology-b8a5d67ea558) , Medium, July 9, 2020 * FTC, DOJ Investigate TikTok Over Alleged Breach of 2019 Agreement (lawstreetmedia.com/tech/ftc-doj-investigate-tiktok-over-alleged-breach-of-2019-agreement/) , Law Street, July 8, 2020 * National Security Commission on AI needs to be more transparent, court rules (www.fedscoop.com/national-security-commission-ai-transparency-lawsuit-epic/) , FedScoop, July 7, 2020 * Judge Who Read Unredacted Mueller Report Has a Spreadsheet Full of Questions for the DOJ to Answer (lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-who-read-unredacted-mueller-report-has-a-spreadsheet-full-of-questions-for-the-doj-to-answer/) , Law & Crime, July 7, 2020 * What’s New in the Unredacted Mueller Report? (www.lawfareblog.com/whats-new-unredacted-mueller-report) , Lawfare, July 2, 2020 * Increasing Transparency at the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (www.lawfareblog.com/increasing-transparency-national-security-commission-artificial-intelligence) , LawFare, July 1, 2020
More EPIC in the News » (epic.org/news/epic_in_news.php)
** EPIC Bookstore ———————————————————— EPIC publications and books by members of the EPIC Advisory Board, distinguished experts in law, technology and public policy are available at the EPIC Bookstore (www.epic.org/bookstore) . Featured now at the EPIC Bookstore:
EU Law in Populist Times: Crises and Prospects (https://www.amazon.com/EU-Law-Populist-Times-Prospects/dp/1108485081/) (Francesca Bignami ed., 2020).
Authored by leading academics and policymakers, EU Law in Populist Times provides a comprehensive and cutting-edge analysis of the fields of European Union law at the heart of contemporary political debates—economic policy, human migration, internal security, and constitutional fundamentals at the national level.

** Recent EPIC Publications ————————————————————
The AI Policy Sourcebook 2020 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/173261394X/?tag=epicorg-20) , edited by Marc Rotenberg (EPIC 2020) The AI Policy Sourcebook includes global AI frameworks such as the OECD AI Principles and the Universal Guidelines for AI. The Sourcebook also includes AI materials from the European Union and the Council of Europe, national AI initiatives, as well as recommendations from professional societies, including the ACM and the IEEE. The Sourcebook also includes an extensive resources section on AI, including reports, articles, and books from around the world.
The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2020 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732613931/?tag=epicorg-20) , edited by Marc Rotenberg (EPIC 2020) The Privacy Law Sourcebook is the leading resource for students, attorneys, and policymakers interested in privacy law in the United States and around the world. The Sourcebook includes major US privacy laws. The Sourcebook also includes key international privacy frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the modernized Council of Europe Convention on Privacy. The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2020 includes the new California Consumer Privacy Act, the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, the Public Voice Declaration for a Moratorium on Facial Recognition, and updates on GDPR implementation. EPIC’s Privacy Law Sourcebook also includes extensive contact information for privacy agencies, organizations, and publications.
EPIC v. Department of Justice: The Mueller Report (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732613915/?tag=epicorg-20) , commentary by Marc Rotenberg (EPIC 2019) EPIC v. Department of Justice: The Mueller Report chronicles the efforts to obtain a full account of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. EPIC filed the first lawsuit in the country for the release of the full and unredacted Mueller Report and obtained a newly redacted version in early May 2019. EPIC is now challenging the redactions made by the Department of Justice in federal court. This volume is an essential guide to the legal arguments about the redactions, the dispute between the Attorney General and the Special Counsel, and EPIC’s request for the Mueller Report and other records about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Communications Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, 6th Edition (https://www.amazon.com/Communications-Law-Policy-Cases-Materials/dp/0997850221/) , by Jerry Kang and Alan Butler (Direct Injection Press 2018). This teachable casebook provides an introduction to the law and policy of modern communications. The book is organized by analytic concepts instead of current industry lines, which are constantly made out-of-date by technological convergence. The basic ideas—power, entry, pricing, access, classification, bad content, and intermediary liability—equip students with a durable and yet flexible intellectual structure that can help parse a complex and ever-changing field.
Privacy Law and Society, 3rd Edition (privacylawandsociety.org/) , by Anita Allen, JD, PhD and Marc Rotenberg, JD, LLM (West Academic 2015). The Third Edition of “Privacy Law and Society” is the most comprehensive casebook on privacy law ever produced. It traces the development of modern privacy law, from the early tort cases to present day disputes over drone surveillance and facial recognition. The text examines the philosophical roots of privacy claims and the significant court cases and statues that have emerged. The text provides detailed commentary on leading cases and insight into emerging issues. The text includes new material on developments in the European Union, decisions grounded in fundamental rights jurisprudence, and exposes readers to current debates over cloud computing, online profiling, and the role of the Federal Trade Commission. Privacy Law and Society is the leading and most current text in the privacy field.
Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions (epic.org/privacy-book/) , edited by Marc Rotenberg, Julia Horwitz and Jeramie Scott (The New Press 2015).
The threats to privacy are well known: The National Security Agency tracks our phone calls; Google records where we go online and how we set our thermostats; Facebook changes our privacy settings when it wishes; Target gets hacked and loses control of our credit card information; our medical records are available for sale to strangers; our children are fingerprinted and their every test score saved for posterity; and small robots patrol our schoolyards while drones may soon fill our skies.
The contributors to this anthology don’t simply describe these problems or warn about the loss of privacy—they propose solutions.
Contributors include: Steven Aftergood, Ross Anderson, Christine L. Borgman (coauthored with Kent Wada and James F. Davis), Ryan Calo, Danielle Citron, A. Michael Froomkin, Deborah Hurley, Kristina Irion, Jeff Jonas, Harry Lewis, Anna Lysyanskaya, Gary T. Marx, Aleecia M. McDonald, Dr. Pablo G. Molina, Peter G. Neumann, Helen Nissenbaum, Frank Pasquale, Dr. Deborah Peel, MD, Stephanie E. Perrin, Marc Rotenberg, Pamela Samuelson, Bruce Schneier, and Christopher Wolf.
** 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.
Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences (epic.us8.list-manage.com/profile?u=21f268dd7c516fe1339a07557&id=3fd456d82b&e=13ae418a53) or unsubscribe from this list (epic.us8.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=21f268dd7c516fe1339a07557&id=3fd456d82b&e=13ae418a53&c=0cea0de09a) .
** About EPIC ———————————————————— The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is a non-profit, independent public interest research center in Washington, DC. EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues. Today EPIC maintains one of the top privacy websites in the world. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, files amicus briefs on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues, and conducts policy research. For more information, visit www.epic.org
** Support EPIC ————————————————————
If you’d like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to “EPIC” and sent to 1519 New Hampshire Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036. Or you can contribute online at:
www.epic.org/support
Your contributions help support Freedom of Information Act litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy, and continued public education. Thank you for your support.
============================================================
** (http://www.twitter.com/epicprivacy) ** (www.facebook.com/epicprivacy) ** (epic.org) You are receiving this email because you registered for biweekly Alerts at EPIC.org.
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.
Our mailing address is: Electronic Privacy Information Center 1519 New Hampshire Ave NW Washington, DC 20036 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can ** update your preferences (epic.us8.list-manage.com/profile?u=21f268dd7c516fe1339a07557&id=3fd456d82b&e=13ae418a53) or ** unsubscribe from this list (epic.us8.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=21f268dd7c516fe1339a07557&id=3fd456d82b&e=13ae418a53&c=0cea0de09a)
Back issues are available at: ** www.epic.org/alert (www.epic.org/alert)
Copyright © 2020 Electronic Privacy Information Center, All rights reserved. ** (www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fepic.org%2Fepic-news-epic-alert-2710) ** Share (www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fepic.org%2Fepic-news-epic-alert-2710) ** (twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%5B%5BEPIC+NEWS%5D+EPIC+Alert+27.10: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fepic.org%2Fepic-news-epic-alert-2710) ** Tweet (twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%5B%5BEPIC+NEWS%5D+EPIC+Alert+27.10: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fepic.org%2Fepic-news-epic-alert-2710) ** (us8.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=21f268dd7c516fe1339a07557&id=0cea0de09a&e=13ae418a53) ** Forward (us8.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=21f268dd7c516fe1339a07557&id=0cea0de09a&e=13ae418a53)

Bir cevap yazın