10/29. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, Sup. Ct. No. 11-1025. At issue is whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the "outside the United States" surveillance provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Introduction. Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued for Amnesty International (AI) and the other plaintiffs. Donald Verrilli, the Solicitor General, argued for the government surveillance agencies.

Verrilli said that the statute at issue provides "authority to the executive to conduct surveillance targeted at foreign persons located abroad for foreign intelligence purposes". However, the Justices focused on persons within the US, particularly attorneys representing clients abroad, who are also affected by this surveillance power.

Justice Elena Kagan said that the "statute greatly expands the government's surveillance power". Justice Anthony Kennedy said that it provides an "extraordinarily wide-reaching power".

However, while the complaint filed in the District Court challenges the constitutionality of the 2008 statute, the issue now before the Supreme Court is merely whether the plaintiffs have standing. Since the government has not notified the plaintiffs that that their phone conversations have been intercepted or emails copied, the government argues that they have not shown that they have suffered an injury that would confer standing to sue.

The question presented is "Whether respondents lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief because they proffered no evidence that the United States would imminently acquire their international communications using Section 1881a-authorized surveillance and did not show that an injunction prohibiting Section 1881a authorized surveillance would likely redress their purported injuries."

Verrilli (at right) argued that when the US has not criminally charged someone based upon intercepts under this statute, and has not otherwise notified someone that they have had or will have their communications intercepted under this statute, they cannot allege an injury sufficient to confer standing.

Justice Kagan (at left) argued that for US based attorneys representing clients abroad, with the enactment of the 2008 statute, "there is a significant risk that our conversations will be surveilled, a risk that didn't exist before. Because of that significant risk, we have to take precautions ...; therefore, there is standing".

This oral argument did not cover the other ways in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to undermine the attorney client privilege.

2008 Statute. Section 702 of the FISA, which is codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, contains the "outside" the US surveillance authority. This authority was enacted by the 110th Congress in 2008 by HR 6304 [LOC | WW], the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008".

The 2008 statute gives the government authority to conduct surveillance related to persons "outside" the US, without individualized court approval. Surveillance of persons "outside of the United States" is a term of art that also enables surveillance of persons inside of the US who fall within the protection of the 4th Amendment.

The 2008 statute allows "the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information" without a warrant that identifies any persons, phones or accounts.

This provision does require a court order. However, it allows broad generalized orders. It allows orders that cover an entire surveillance program, without identification or description of any person, phone, or email account. In contrast, the 4th Amendment requires individualized orders. That is, it requires orders "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

Some oppose this provision because US citizens are located abroad, persons abroad communicate with persons inside the US, and those conducting surveillance often do not know the location of the persons they are attempting to surveil. Hence, this provision enables the government to conduct warrantless wiretaps and other surveillance of US citizens located in the US when communicating with persons whom the government believes are abroad.

These concerns have been heightened by refusals by leaders of the intelligence agencies to publicly disclose how many US persons' communications are intercepted or seized, without an individualized warrant, under the authority created by the 2008 Act.

Proceedings Below. Promptly after enactment of HR 6304, Amnesty International and other groups and individuals filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) against the predecessor of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and other government officials, alleging that Section 702 is unconstitutional under the 1st and 4th Amendments.

The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. It reasoned that since the plaintiffs did not establish that they were the targets of surveillance under the challenged section, they have not suffered the requisite injury in fact to confer standing to sue.

The plaintiffs appealed. On March 21, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion in which it "reversed" and "vacated and remanded" the judgment of the District Court. See, story titled "2nd Circuit Reinstates Challenge to FISA Powers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,209, March 25, 2011. That opinion is reported at 638 F.3d 118.

The defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on February 17, 2012, which granted certiorari on May 21, 2012.

See also, government's merits brief and plaintiffs' merits brief.

Oral Argument. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer asked questions that suggested skepticism of the government's arguments.

Ginsburg asked if, even if a challenger had standing, "Wouldn't the government then say as far as the merits of the complaint, this information is classified, these are state secrets, we can't -- we can't go forward with the litigation?" Verrelli answered, "that's a possibility".

Sotomayor expressed concern about intercept of communications of US attorneys, when their clients are located outside the US. She questioned whether these US attorneys would ever have standing, since they would not be charged.

Justice Scalia noted that the Supreme Court has previously held that there is nothing wrong with a statute that "nobody would have standing to challenge".

Verrilli argued that the court should not find standing based upon speculation or inference that a particular person's communications have been intercepted.

Justice Breyer then discussed a particular attorney who represents someone held at Guantanamo Bay. Breyer said that he "has to phone and has phoned lots of people in Saudi Arabia, in the various Arab states, and in the past the U.S. intercepted some 10,000 telephone calls and 20,000 e-mail communications involving his client. So isn't it a fair inference, almost pretty certain, maybe about as much as the storm, that if the security agencies are doing their job, they will, in fact, intercept further communications involving this particular individual, the two that he's representing?"

Justice Kennedy added that "I think the lawyer would engage in malpractice if he talked on the telephone with some of these clients, given this statute."

Verrilli responded with a causation argument. He asserted that it is legal ethics rules that cause such attorneys not use the phone, not the 2008 statute.

Jaffer argued that "Plaintiffs have standing here because there is a substantial risk that their communications will be acquired under the Act and because this substantial risk has effectively compelled them to take immediate measures to protect information that is sensitive or privileged. Plaintiffs are lawyers, journalists and human rights researchers who routinely engage in communications that the Act is designed to allow the government to acquire."

The plaintiffs include lawyers, journalists and researchers. However, the Justices' questioned focused almost entirely on lawyers' communications with their clients and witnesses.

However, Justice Kagan asked about journalists who "have simply not gotten information from third parties that they otherwise would have gotten". And, she said, "But if you assume that information is the lifeblood of journalism, that their sources and their information has dried up as a result of this statute."

Congressional Bills. The statutory provision enacted in 2008 has a five year sunset. It is set to expire at the end of this year. However, there is pending legislation to extend the sunset.

On September 12, 2012, the House passed HR 5949 [LOC | WW], the "FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012", without amendment, by a vote of 301-118. Republicans voted 227-7. Democrats voted 74-111. See, Roll Call No. 569 and story titled "House Passes Bill to Extend FISA Outside the US Surveillance Authority" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,447, September 13, 2012. President Obama publicly supported this bill. See, story titled "Obama Backs FISA Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,446, September 12, 2012.

The Senate has not yet passed its version of the bill, S 3276 [LOC | WW]. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who opposed the bill in the Senate Intelligence Committee (HIC), has placed a hold on the bill.

For more coverage of this legislation, see:

• stories titled "Senate Considers Bill To Extend FISA Outside the US Warrantless Wiretap Authority", "House Judiciary Committee Takes Up Bill To Extend FISA Outside the US Warrantless Wiretap Authority", and "Commentary: Warrantless Wiretaps and Senate Secrecy" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,396, June 14, 2012.
• stories titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves FISA Bill" and "HJC Roll Call Votes on HR 5949" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,399, June 19, 2012.
• story titled "Update on FISA Outside the US Surveillance Bills" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,406, July 10, 2012.
• story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Outside the US Surveillance Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,408, July 17, 2012.

This case is James Clapper, et al. v. Amnesty International USA, et al., Supreme Court of the US, Sup. Ct. No. 11-1025. This is a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 09-4112-cv, Judges Calabresis, Sack and Lynch presiding. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John Koeltl presiding.

See also, Supreme Court docket, and transcript of oral argument.

10/26. President Obama signed an executive order (EO) titled "Establishing the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council". The most notably characteristic of this EO is that it does not disclose what it is intended to accomplish.

This EO creates a "Council" and a "Steering Committee" related to "homeland security", but is otherwise carefully worded to obfuscate its purpose.

This order provides that at a later date the Steering Committee, which will be comprised solely of representatives of federal executive branch departments, will "the determine the scope of issue areas the Council will address".

President Obama has suggested that he might issue an executive order pertaining to cyber security that would attempt to impose the regulatory regime described in S 3414 [LOC | WW], the "Cybersecurity Act of 2012". That bill has stalled in the Senate, and been ignored by the House Republican leadership. See, story titled "Senate Rejects Cloture on Sen. Lieberman's Cyber Security Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,419, August 3, 2012.

See also, stories titled "House and Senate Republicans Write Obama Opposing Regulation of Internet by Executive Order" and "Sen. Grassley States Cyber Security Should Be Addressed by Legislation Rather Than Presidential Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,461, October 15, 2012.

However, while this EO references "homeland security", it makes no reference to "cyber security", "internet", "computer systems", or related things.

This EO does reference a "National Security Strategy". The Executive Office of the President (EOP) released a document [60 pages in PDF] in May of 2010 with this title. Moreover, this EO contains a quotation taken from page 16 of that document. That 2010 document addresses many subjects, including cyber security.

This EO may be intended as an implementation of one aspect of that 2010 statement.

This EO may be an insignificant effort to present the mere appearance of greater administration activity.

This EO may be an effort to evade laws that are specific to individual executive departments, by transferring activity to an extra-departmental body. It might likewise be an effort to evade the committee based Congressional oversight system.

This EO may be part of an effort to attain policy objectives via executive order, and extra-departmental processes, that the administration has not been able to implement via legislation, for example, in the areas of cyber security or data retention, as well as in other homeland security policy areas that are not technology related.

This EO is also published in a notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 213, November 2, 2012, at Pages 66351-66355.

10/22. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it filed an administrative complaint [PDF] against, and entered into a consent agreement [PDF] with, Compete, Inc., in connection with its use of web tracking software in ways that violated its privacy policy.

The FTC stated in a release that contrary to assurances in its privacy policy, "Compete failed to remove personal data before transmitting it; failed to provide reasonable and appropriate data security; transmitted sensitive information from secure websites in readable text; failed to design and implement reasonable safeguards to protect consumers’ data; and failed to use readily available measures to mitigate the risk to consumers' data".

The complaint alleged that this violates Section 5 of the FTC Act. The complaint does not allege that Compete's activities, in the absence of a privacy policy, would have violated the FTC Act.

Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45, provides, in part, that "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful".

The complaint states that "Compete is a market research company that collects data from consumers so that it can, among other things, develop and sell analytical reports about consumer behavior on the Internet." It "collected data about consumers" who downloaded its software. It promised consumers "information about websites as they surfed the Internet" and "rewards".

The complaint continued that Compete's privacy policy stated that it would "anonymously" collect browsing information, and that "All data is stripped of personally identifiable information before it is transmitted to our servers."

But, "In fact, Compete collected more than browsing behavior or addresses of web pages. It collected extensive information about consumers’ online activities and transmitted the information in clear readable text to Compete’s servers. The data collected included information about all websites visited, all links followed, and the advertisements displayed when the consumer was on a given web page. The captured data included details about consumers’ online behavior to the extent that, for example, Compete knew whether a consumer abandoned or completed a purchase after placing an item in an online shopping cart."

The complaint also states that "Compete also captured some information consumers communicated on secure web pages (e.g., https), such as credit card numbers, financial account numbers, security codes and expiration dates, usernames, passwords, search terms, or Social Security numbers." And, "Compete failed to implement a simple, commonly used, algorithm to screen out credit card numbers".

The complaint also states the Compete asserted falsely in its privacy policy that "We take reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized access to or unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of personal information."

The settlement agreement includes no admission of wrongdoing, and no fine. It merely prohibits prospectively certain enumerated practices. It also requires disclosures, deletion of data, outside monitoring, record keeping, and reporting.

Compete is represented in this matter by Christopher Wolf of the law firm of Hogan Lovells and Gary Kibel of the law firm of Davis and Gilbert.

The deadline to submit comments to the FTC regarding this proposed consent agreement is November 19, 2012. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 209, October 29, 2012, Pages 65550-65552. This administrative proceeding is FTC File No. 102 3155.

Election Day.

The Senate will meet at 11:00 AM in pro forma session.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM in pro forma session.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division's (AD) Economic Analysis Group (EAG) will host a presentation titled "Direct Licensing, PROs and Competition". The speaker will be Kevin Murphy (University of Chicago business school). For more information, contact Gloria Sheu at gloria dot sheu at usdoj dot gov or 202-532-4932, or Nathan Miller at nathan dot miller at usdoj dot gov or 202-307-3773. Location: Liberty Square Building, EAG conference room, LSB 9429, 450 5th St., NW.

The House will not meet. It is in recess, except for pro forma sessions, until after the November elections.

The Senate will not meet. It is in recess, except for pro forma sessions, until November 13, 2012.

9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The November 7 portion of this meeting is open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 204, October 22, 2012, at Page 64464. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

10:00 AM. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Already v. Nike, Sup. Ct. No. 11-982. The question presented is "Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party's challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party's then-existing commercial activities." See, Supreme Court docket. Location: Supreme Court, 1 First St., NW.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (NCOHIT) HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 207, October 25, 2012, at Page 65191. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert St., NW.

11:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host an on site and webcast meeting on mobile privacy. The agenda [PDF] includes a discussion of a draft [MS Word] of the "Mobile Application Transparency Code of Conduct". See, NTIA page for live webcast. Location: American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Tracking Protection Working Group will meet by teleconference. The call in number is 1-617-761-6200. The passcode is TRACK (87225).

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust will host a teleconferenced panel discussion titled "EU and US Perspectives on EU Data Protection Reform". The speakers will be Gail Slater (FTC), Bruno Lebrun (UGGC Avocats), Yael Weinman (FTC), and Lindsey Finch (Salesforce.com). Free. No CLE credits. See, notice.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 191, October 2, 2012, at Pages 60131-60132. Location: Ronald Reagan Building, Room B 1.5-10, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development National Coordination Office's Large Scale Networking Coordinating Group's Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination Team will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 183, September 20, 2012, at Pages 58416. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia.

8:15 AM - 5:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a conference titled "2012 Antitrust Fall Forum". The speakers and other participants will include Judge Douglas Ginsburg (USCA/DCCir), Judge Dianne Wood (USCA/7thCir), Renata Hesse (DOJ/AD), Lynda Marshall (DOJ/AD), Leslie Overton (DOJ/AD), Deirdre McEvoy (DOJ/AD), Thomas Rosch (FTC Commissioner), Maureen Ohlhausen (FTC Commissioner), Howard Shelanski (Director of the FTC's Bureau of Economics), David Vladeck (Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection), Reilly Dolan (FTC), Zachary Katz (Chief of Staff to FCC Chairman Genachowski), Jake Sullivan (Department of State), Lucy Morris (CFPB), Scott Hemphill (Chief of the Antitrust Bureau, New York), and Carlos Ragazzo (Superintendent of the Council for Economic Defense, Brasilia, Brazil). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, event web site and agenda. Location: National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St. NW.

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The November 8 portion of this meeting is closed to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 204, October 22, 2012, at Page 64464. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

RESCHEDULED. 9:30 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 213, November 2, 2012, at Pages 66178-66179. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

9:30 - 11:00 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "The Impact of Cloud Computing On Developing Economies". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), Peter Cowhay (UC San Diego), Bernard McKay (Intuit), and Ken Zita (Network Dynamics). See, notice. Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610A, 1101 K St., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, A Post Supreme Court Oral Argument Review". The speakers will be Andrew Berger (Tannenbaum Helpern) and Scott Bain (SIIA). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

5:00 PM. The University of Maryland's (UM) Cyber Security Center will host a presentation by Wenke Lee (Georgia Tech School of Computer Science). This event is free, and open to the public, but registration is required. See, notice. Location: UM, Computer Science Instructional Center, Room 1115, MD.

6:30 - 10:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "23rd Annual Charity Auction". For more information, contact Brendan Carr at brendantcarr at gmail dot com or Kerry Loughney at kerry at fcba dot org. Location: Capital Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.

The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM in pro forma session.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a presentation titled "iPad for the Litigating Attorney". The speaker will be Judge Herbert Dixon (D.C. Court's Technology Enhanced Courtroom Pilot Project). Free. No CLE credits. For more information, call Daniel Mills at 202-626-1312. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Register by sending an e-mail to dmills at dcbar dot org. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Science Advisory Board regarding its draft report [21 pages in PDF] titled "A Review of NOAA’s Future Satellite Program: A Way Forward". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 196, October 10, 2012, at Page 61573.

5:00 PM. Extended deadline to submit comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in response to its notice in the Federal Register that requests comments regarding the creation of the interoperable public safety broadband network by the First Responder Network Authority, or FirstNet, as required by the spectrum bill enacted in February. The original deadline was November 1. See, original notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 193, October 4, 2012, at Pages 60680-6068. The extended deadline is November 9. See, NTIA notice. See also, story titled "NTIA Releases Public Safety Network NOI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,458, October 4, 2012.

Veterans Day.

Veterans Day observed. This is a federal holiday. See, OPM list of 2012 federal holidays.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Discovery by Leaps and Bounds: Practical Issues in International Antitrust Cases". The speakers will be Scott Martin (Greenberg Traurig), Hollis Salzman (Labaton Sucharow), and Belinda Hollway (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice.

The Senate will return from elections recess at 2:00 PM.

9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Materials Processing Technical Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 211, October 31, 2012, at Page 65857. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Standards Committee will meet. Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 210, October 30, 2012, at Page 65691. Location: Dupont Circle Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

TIME? The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will hold another in a series of meetings regarding consumer data privacy in the context of mobile applications. See also, NTIA web page titled "Privacy Multistakeholder Process: Mobile Application Transparency". This event will be webcast.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Broadband and Engineering and Technical Committees will host a brown bag lunch titled "Broadband Innovation". Free. No CLE credits. Location: NAB, 1771 N St., NW.

10/31. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that sets comment deadlines for its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [146 pages in PDF] regarding its program access rules. The FCC adopted and released this item on October 5, 2012. It is FCC 12-123 in MB Docket No. 12-68. The deadline to submit initial comments is November 30, 2012. The deadline to submit reply comments is December 17, 2012. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 211, October 31, 2012, at Pages 66052-66065. The FCC also published a notice in the FR that announces, describes, and sets the effective date for its Report and Order (R&O). The effective date is November 30, 2012. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 211, October 31, 2012, at Pages 66025-66051. See also, stories titled "FCC Lets Expire Its Per Se Ban on Exclusive Program Distribution Contracts", "FCC Adopts Report and Order on Program Access Rules", "FCC Adopts NPRM on Case by Case Analysis of Exclusive Contracts", and "Reaction to FCC's Program Access Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,460, October 6, 2012.

10/31. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) released its draft SP 800-164 [33 pages in PDF] titled "Guidelines on Hardware-Rooted Security in Mobile Devices". The deadline to submit comments is December 14, 2012.

10/26. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced in a release that the U.S. and Canada have a "Cybersecurity Action Plan". The DHS did not release the text of any plan. The DHS release states that this plan "outlines shared goals for improved engagement, collaboration, and information sharing at the operational and strategic levels, with the private sector, and in public awareness activities."

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.

Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2012 David Carney. All rights reserved.