{"article":{"id":10799,"heading":"EPIC Alert 18 : A Special Report on Civil Liberties","author":"EPIC (Electroic Privacy Information Center)","created":"2001-09-26 14:17:38","modified":"2005-08-15 00:39:27","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:39:27","article":"
\r\n\r\r\n     ==============================================================\r\r\n\r\r\nEPIC ALERT<\/b>\r\n\r\r\n     ==============================================================\r\r\n     Volume 8.18 September 24, 2001\r\r\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\r\r\n\r\r\n                              Published by the\r\r\n                Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)\r\r\n                              Washington, D.C.\r\r\n\r\r\n               http:\/\/www.epic.org\/alert\/EPIC_Alert_8.18.html\r\r\n\r\r\n=======================================================================\r\r\nSpecial EPIC Alert\r\r\n=======================================================================\r\r\n\r\r\n\r\r\n

In the days following September 11, Congress moved quickly to show\r\n\r\nsupport for the President and granted him certain authority to pursue\r\n\r\nmilitary matters on behalf of the country. Congress then worked to\r\n\r\nprovide financial support for rebuilding after the tragedy. Then\r\n\r\nCongress acted to improve airline safety, ensure aid to the airline\r\n\r\nindustry, and begin to restore American confidence in air travel.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Now it may be appropriate for Congress to take a breath before it\r\n\r\ntackles the subjects contained in the various bills that will be\r\n\r\ncirculating on Capitol Hill this week. Unlike the earlier measures\r\n\r\nthat responded to the immediate crisis, the topics under consideration\r\n\r\nthis week -- immigration policy, criminal law, electronic\r\n\r\nsurveillance, and intelligence gathering -- sweep broadly into other\r\n\r\nareas and run the risk, particularly at this point in time, of\r\n\r\nchipping away rights that safeguard all Americans<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In the area of electronic surveillance, Congress should proceed\r\n\r\nparticularly carefully. There are now a mix of provisions that, if\r\n\r\ntaken together, would allow more people in government to monitor more\r\n\r\nelectronic communications of Americans for more reasons under a lower\r\n\r\nlegal standard than is currently permitted under law. And this new\r\n\r\nstatutory authority would be broadly exercised in cases completely\r\n\r\nunrelated to terrorism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

So, for example, the police could now use \"Carnivore\" to routinely\r\n\r\ncapture clickstream data from Internet users -- including the web\r\n\r\nsites visited and the pages downloaded -- under the same low standards\r\n\r\nthat currently permit government access to telephone numbers dialed.\r\n\r\nAnother provision would significantly expand the use of electronic\r\n\r\nsurveillance for computer crime investigations. Still another makes\r\n\r\nit easier to seize voicemail.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

It may be appropriate for Congress to act on a few matters quickly --\r\n\r\nimproving border security and ensuring adequate resources for\r\n\r\ntranslation and interpretation -- but the vast majority of legislative\r\n\r\nrecommendations now being faxed around Washington create sweeping\r\n\r\nsurveillance authority without justification. The adoption now of any\r\n\r\nnew law enforcement powers unrelated to the investigation and\r\n\r\nprevention of terrorist acts should be opposed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Marc Rotenberg\r\n\r\nElectronic Privacy Information Center<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

-----------------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"But, in a time of widespread anxiety, it is harder to fend off the\r\n\r\nsiren song of fear sung by those who would have us trade in a little\r\n\r\nliberty for a little more safety. There is no such thing as a little\r\n\r\nliberty. Before you know it, you don't have any, and America is no\r\n\r\nlonger the shining beacon of equality and freedom that terrorists\r\n\r\nloathe.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.accessatlanta.com\/ajc\/epaper\/editions\/sunday\/opinion_b34a146ad10661f10008.html
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Last week's terrorist attacks caught the United States painfully\r\n\r\nunprepared. Whether the carnage was preventable or not, this tragedy\r\n\r\n-- and the glaring intelligence failures that let it happen -- must\r\n\r\nnot be used as a pretext for measures that endanger the fundamental\r\n\r\nfreedoms that are our birthright. Yes, tough and pragmatic laws are\r\n\r\nneeded to prevent terrorism and espionage. And that should include\r\n\r\nkeeping closer tabs on visitors to our country. But terrorism will\r\n\r\nhave won if those laws unnecessarily fetter the fundamental civil\r\n\r\nliberties that have distinguished the United States from the rest of\r\n\r\nthe world.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Baltimore Sun, September 19, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.baltimoresun.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"There is general acknowledgement that society's delicate balance\r\n\r\nbetween freedom and security will tip toward greater security at the\r\n\r\nexpense of individual liberties. But the exact spot along that\r\n\r\ncontinuum where Americans will tolerate restrictions on their freedoms\r\n\r\n-- and where they will resist -- has not yet been located. Vigilance\r\n\r\nwill be needed to make sure that the precious freedoms central to the\r\n\r\nAmerican idea are not eroded by equally necessary new safety\r\n\r\nprecautions.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Boston Globe, September 20, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.boston.com\/globe\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"The true measure of the effectiveness of this attack by a shadowy,\r\n\r\nhate-filled enemy will lie in how we reassess ourselves and our place\r\n\r\nin the world, and how we redefine, as inevitably we will, the balance\r\n\r\nbetween individual liberty and collective, national security. If we\r\n\r\nlose our liberties in the name of safety, the terrorists will have\r\n\r\nwon. That cannot, must not, happen.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --The Buffalo News, September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.buffalonews.com\/editorial\/20010916\/1028304.asp
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"[C]ivil libertarians have good reason to be wary of proposals to\r\n\r\nexpand the government's power to go after suspected terrorists. In\r\n\r\nwartime, some people consider basic rights a luxury we can do without.\r\n\r\n. . . At times like this, any ideas to help law enforcement against\r\n\r\nterrorists deserve consideration--and careful inspection to ensure\r\n\r\nthat they will hamper our enemies more than they will hurt our\r\n\r\nliberties.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Chicago Tribune, September 20, 2001
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n  http:\/\/www.chicagotribune.com\/news\/opinion\/chi-0109200048sep20.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsopinion%2Dhed
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"[T]he terror attack unleashed on America must not become an excuse\r\n\r\nfor suspending basic American principles and values. . . . Special\r\n\r\ncare should be taken to ensure that ethnic profiling of people of Arab\r\n\r\nor South Asian background is used judiciously and sparingly by\r\n\r\nlaw-enforcement officials. The hunt for suspected terrorists or\r\n\r\nterrorist sympathizers can't justify a descent into unjust police\r\n\r\nmethods. Wars sometimes occasion a lapse in democratic processes, and\r\n\r\nthe situation following the Sept. 11 attacks is being characterized as\r\n\r\n'war.' This must not mean a lapse in basic civil liberties, or in the\r\n\r\ncivility with which all people are treated in the US.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Christian Science Monitor, September 18, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.csmonitor.com\/2001\/0918\/p8s1-comv.html
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Although more value does need to be placed on low-tech human\r\n\r\nintelligence gathering, other tools of eavesdropping need to be used\r\n\r\nwhile balancing the civil liberties of Americans. Proposals to grant\r\n\r\nintelligence agencies more latitude need to be revisited and debated.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Dallas Morning News, September 17, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.dallasnews.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"[A] frightful picture is emerging. It seems that American leadership\r\n\r\nhas resolved the tension between security and freedom by giving\r\n\r\nsecurity the priority. Without a debate over how far we can\r\n\r\njeopardize our freedom in pursuit of security, we seem to be inclined\r\n\r\ntoward doing whatever it takes to feel safer. . . . Imagine being\r\n\r\nstopped by a police officer for speeding and when he asks you for your\r\n\r\nID, you reveal not only your name and address but also your religion,\r\n\r\nyour ethnic and national origin, your financial record, and police or\r\n\r\nimmigration record if any. This is not only a form of profiling but\r\n\r\nalso an invitation for discrimination. The smart cards, if\r\n\r\nimplemented, would be the end of privacy. . . . We must act now. I\r\n\r\ninvite all who are concerned about our freedoms and the quality of our\r\n\r\ncivil society to let Washington know our concerns now.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Detroit Free Press, September 18, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.freep.com\/voices\/columnists\/ekhan18_20010918.htm
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Historically, it has been at times of inflamed passions and national\r\n\r\nanger that our civil liberties proved to be at greatest risk, and the\r\n\r\nunpopular group of the moment was subject to prejudice and deprivation\r\n\r\nof liberty.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Detroit News, September 21, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/detnews.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"[W]e must uphold our values and protect our constitutional rights.\r\n\r\nWhile retaliating for last week's attacks and upgrading our\r\n\r\nintelligence and national security, we must be sure to maintain the\r\n\r\nimportant principles - of civil liberty, ethnic and religious\r\n\r\ntolerance, and freedom of expression - that are the foundation and\r\n\r\nstrength of our nation. If we allow terrorists to alter our values or\r\n\r\nway of life, we hand them a victory.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Indianapolis Star, September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.indystar.org\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"It is one thing to pass emergency legislation; quite another to make\r\n\r\nit a permanent part of our law. Any congressional enactment should\r\n\r\ncome with a sunset provision, requiring the law to lapse after two\r\n\r\nyears unless it is reenacted. During the interim, Congress should\r\n\r\ncreate a bipartisan commission to consider the fundamental questions\r\n\r\nat stake. Then, we can consider more permanent legislation after the\r\n\r\ninitial panic has subsided. We have used similar devices in the past.\r\n\r\n. . . This time, our tradition of civil liberties is being placed at\r\n\r\nrisk, and there are special reasons that make a sunset provision even\r\n\r\nmore appropriate. The most obvious is the rush with which the\r\n\r\nlegislation is being pushed through Congress. . . . The rise of\r\n\r\nterrorism undoubtedly requires a serious debate over the proper\r\n\r\nbalance between liberty and security in the 21st century. But\r\n\r\nCongress should not provide permanent answers when we have not even\r\n\r\nbegun to ask the right questions.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/news\/opinion\/la-092001ackerman.story
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Do Americans really think well of the 'whatever-it-takes' battle cry?\r\n\r\nThey shouldn't. There are all sorts of 'whatevers' this country could\r\n\r\nbut shouldn't embrace to fight terrorism. It could unleash police to\r\n\r\nsearch apartment blocks where immigrants are known to live -- hoping\r\n\r\nto root out a terrorist needle in the haystack. It could scrap the\r\n\r\nrule that suspects be told of their rights to a lawyer and to remain\r\n\r\nsilent -- hoping that hapless confessions of terror plots will follow.\r\n\r\nIt could jail suspicious foreigners for weeks -- hoping that\r\n\r\nincriminating evidence might eventually show up. Many Americans\r\n\r\nrecoil at the thought of such blunt tactics, even if they can't say\r\n\r\nwhy. They sense something un-American about combating terrorism by\r\n\r\nscrapping the rule of law. They see the folly of defending the land\r\n\r\nof the free by shrinking its freedoms. . . . Even if Congress\r\n\r\nsubscribes to the 'whatever-it-takes' philosophy, it's not clear this\r\n\r\n[recently introduced] legislation should pass. The White House has\r\n\r\nmade no case that existing law enabled last week's attack or hindered\r\n\r\nthe ensuing investigation. Nor has it established that squelching\r\n\r\ncivil liberties is a wise response to the threat of terror. In truth,\r\n\r\nforsaking American freedom is precisely the wrong answer to the fear\r\n\r\nterrorists sow. It gives them the victory they seek. It flouts an\r\n\r\narticle of American faith: that just as some sacrifices must be made\r\n\r\nin safety's name, others must never be made.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 21, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.startribune.com\/stories\/1519\/703260.html
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"[O]ur constitutional freedoms may be about to face their most\r\n\r\nserious test in several generations. We can't protect ourselves from\r\n\r\nsuicide bombers by blindly surrendering our liberty. To do so would\r\n\r\nonly ensure the victory of fanaticism.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --The New Republic, September 24, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.thenewrepublic.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"There must be an exacting examination of how the country can face\r\n\r\nthis threat without sacrificing its liberties. . . . Americans must\r\n\r\nrethink how to safeguard the country without bartering away the rights\r\n\r\nand privileges of the free society that we are defending. The\r\n\r\ntemptation will be great in the days ahead to write draconian new laws\r\n\r\nthat give law enforcement agencies - or even military forces - a right\r\n\r\nto undermine the civil liberties that shape the character of the\r\n\r\nUnited States. President Bush and Congress must carefully balance the\r\n\r\nneed for heightened security with the need to protect the\r\n\r\nconstitutional rights of Americans. That includes Americans of\r\n\r\nIslamic descent, who could now easily became the target for another\r\n\r\nperiod of American xenophobia and ethnic discrimination.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --New York Times, September 12, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2001\/09\/12\/opinion\/12WED2.html
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"If the idea takes root that civil liberties should not be permitted\r\n\r\nto stand in the way of a war on terrorism, at what point do security\r\n\r\nmeasures start to corrode the very society they are designed to\r\n\r\nprotect? . . . [it has been said that] Americans would accept neither\r\n\r\nidentity cards, so reminiscent of the domestic passports that people\r\n\r\nassociate with totalitarian states, nor the common European practice\r\n\r\nof closing a street at both ends and checking everyone there for\r\n\r\nimmigration violations. Where does a democratic society draw the\r\n\r\nline?\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --New York Times (Associated Press), September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2001\/09\/16\/weekinreview\/16GREE.html?pagewanted=2
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Unshackling the nation's intelligence agencies will be a more complex\r\n\r\ntask, not least because it will run into a dilemma: At what point will\r\n\r\nthe government's powers of investigation and security expand so much\r\n\r\nthat they begin to erode the civil rights defining a free society -\r\n\r\ngiving terrorists a moral victory? The balance between security and\r\n\r\nfreedom is delicate and hard to restore when collective fear tips it\r\n\r\ntoward greater government control.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Newsday (New York, NY), September 18, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.newsday.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"[T]he United States Senate already has acted precipitately, passing\r\n\r\nlegislation Thursday evening that enables the FBI to obtain warrants\r\n\r\nfor electronic surveillance of e-mail and other computer\r\n\r\ncommunications more easily. That initiative, which may result in\r\n\r\nsevere abrogations of individual rights, is probably the harbinger of\r\n\r\na wave of new restrictions and invasions by government. . . . [B]efore\r\n\r\nwe assent to any such infringements, we ought to consider how little\r\n\r\nhas been done to ensure our safety without affronting the\r\n\r\nConstitution. . . . Nobody's freedom, for instance, would be harmed by\r\n\r\nsealing the pilot's cabin against intruders well before takeoff, or by\r\n\r\ninstalling signal devices that would instantly alert authorities to a\r\n\r\ncrime in progress. . . . Our leaders never tire of telling us that\r\n\r\nAmerica is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation in the\r\n\r\nhistory of the world, as well as the most free. Now is the time to\r\n\r\ntell them that we can afford to protect our people and our territory\r\n\r\nwithout undermining our freedom.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Salon.com, September 14, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.salon.com\/news\/col\/cona\/2001\/09\/14\/rights\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"If we sacrifice our civil liberties the terrorists will have won. We\r\n\r\nmust [act] in a way that preserves our civil liberties. It can be\r\n\r\ndone.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --San Diego Union-Tribune, September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.uniontrib.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"In the heat of rightful, red-hot anger, this country may take actions\r\n\r\nit will later regret. Congress is weighing a terrorist surveillance\r\n\r\npackage that clashes with personal liberty and encroaches on some of\r\n\r\nour fundamental rights. This country is eager to move fast and hard\r\n\r\nin response to the murderous attacks in New York and Washington. No\r\n\r\nquestion, payback is due for the deaths and destruction, and this\r\n\r\nnewspaper supports a sustained and focused campaign to hunt down the\r\n\r\nculprits. Yet members of Congress must keep their heads in this\r\n\r\nmoment of frustration and outrage. They need to ask tough questions\r\n\r\nabout each proposed expansion of law-enforcement powers. They need to\r\n\r\nrealize that the U.S. Constitution is worth defending too.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.sfchron.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"To ensure that America's freedom remains strong, Congress should set\r\n\r\naside partisan bickering to help the president track down terrorists.\r\n\r\n. . . Likewise, members of the Senate and House need to keep Bush's\r\n\r\nwords fresh in their minds when considering proposals to reduce\r\n\r\nsecurity threats. The constitutional and privacy protections of\r\n\r\nlaw-abiding citizens ought not to be swept aside because of overly\r\n\r\nbroad or hastily adopted new laws. The country may need new laws to\r\n\r\nhelp federal agents fight well-organized, tech-savvy terrorists. But\r\n\r\nin the heartbreak over these evil deeds, lawmakers must take time to\r\n\r\ndiscuss any actions limiting the freedoms that distinguish America.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --San Jose Mercury News, September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www0.mercurycenter.com\/premium\/opinion\/edit\/082562.htm
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"'In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test\r\n\r\nof its value is not in its taste, but its effects.'\" I hope President\r\n\r\nBush, his inner circle and the members of Congress keep hearing\r\n\r\nFulbright's words echoing down the corridors now filled with\r\n\r\npolicy-making under duress. There must be room for constructive\r\n\r\nquestioning, even as those entrusted with grave decisions push quickly\r\n\r\nto meet the national emergencies in this chilling autumn of 2001.\r\n\r\nWitness, please, the rich potential to shape consensus without\r\n\r\nabrogating basic democratic rights as Congress and the administration\r\n\r\nwork though the Bush administration's anti-terrorism proposals. . . .\r\n\r\nConcurrent with Ashcroft's proposals, key lawmakers have acknowledged\r\n\r\nthat legislating in haste can be cause for irreparable damage to the\r\n\r\nvery rights with which America defines itself. Unlike the sudden,\r\n\r\ntranscendent disregard for budgets and the social programs that seemed\r\n\r\nessential two weeks ago, the regard is high for protecting both\r\n\r\nnational security and the rights we enjoy as free people. . . . Just\r\n\r\npowers are derived from the consent of the governed, whether in time\r\n\r\nof war or peace.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 21, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.pioneerplanet.com\/opinion\/ocl_docs\/139821.htm
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"If we are to win the war against terrorism, we will need to employ\r\n\r\nnew weapons. Nevertheless, Congress must proceed very carefully as it\r\n\r\nconsiders Attorney General John Ashcroft's sweeping proposals. Moving\r\n\r\ntoo hastily or going too far could result in unwarranted curbs on\r\n\r\nconstitutional liberties.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), September 21, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.sun-sentinel.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Celebrating the openness of our society, and its ability to\r\n\r\naccommodate diversity without constantly coming to blows, is more\r\n\r\nimportant now than ever. This is what the terrorists who have been\r\n\r\nimplicated in Tuesday's attacks do not understand about America, and\r\n\r\nthis is why they have chosen to attack us.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), September 16, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.timespicayune.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"Essential questions confront us, such as the degree of liberties we\r\n\r\nwill be willing to surrender in the name of security. The answers\r\n\r\nwill not come quickly or in unanimity. These rough roads ahead should\r\n\r\nnot be overlooked in the initial closing of ranks around President\r\n\r\nBush. But this struggle is what separates democracy from the world of\r\n\r\nsuicidal zealots.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --USA Today, September 21, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/news\/e98\/raasch\/r110.htm
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"This is complex legislation that, as Mr. Ashcroft himself has noted,\r\n\r\nwould affect civil liberties as well as law enforcement. The purpose\r\n\r\nshould be not to rush and rubber-stamp but to get the balance right.\r\n\r\nThat's particularly true of the proposals that would infringe on\r\n\r\ntraditional liberties.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n      --Washington Post, September 20, 2001
\r\n\r\n      http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\nSubscription Information\r\n\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\nSubscribe\/unsubscribe via Web interface:\r\n       http:\/\/mailman.epic.org\/cgi-bin\/mailman\/listinfo\/epic_news\/\r\n\r\nSubscribe\/unsubscribe via email: epic_news-request@mailman.epic.org\r\n subject line: \"subscribe\" or \"unsubscribe\"\r\n\r\nBack issues are available at:\r\n       http:\/\/www.epic.org\/alert\/\r\n\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\nPrivacy Policy\r\n\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to\r\n\r\nsend notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our\r\n\r\nmailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal\r\n\r\nprocess seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link\r\n\r\nto other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your email address\r\n\r\nfrom this list, please follow the above instructions under\r\n\r\n\"subscription information\". Please contact info@epic.org if you have\r\n\r\nany other questions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\nAbout EPIC\r\n\r\n=======================================================================\r\n\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest\r\n\r\nresearch center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to\r\n\r\nfocus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper\r\n\r\nChip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical\r\n\r\nrecord privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information.\r\n\r\nEPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act\r\n\r\nlitigation, and conducts policy research. For more information,\r\n\r\ne-mail info@epic.org, http:\/\/www.epic.org or write EPIC, 1718\r\n\r\nConnecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.\r\n\r\n+1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy\r\n\r\nInformation Center, contributions are welcome and fully\r\n\r\ntax-deductible. Checks should be made out to \"EPIC\" and sent to\r\n\r\n1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.\r\n\r\nOr you can contribute online at:
\r\n   http:\/\/www.guidestar.org\/aol\/search\/report\/report.adp?ein=52-2225921<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and\r\n\r\nFirst Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the\r\n\r\nright of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of\r\n\r\nencryption and expanding wiretapping powers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Thank you for your support.<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A special report on civil liberties, highlighting the dangers of hurridly sacrificing freedoms for dubious security benefits. Features excerpts and links to major papers across the US.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/09\/epic.htm","filesize":"28.5 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/09\/10799.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}