CSEC 630- A Review of Foreign Policy Institutes

1 PRIVACY POLICIES OF GLOBAL THINK TANKS: The BrookingsInstitution, CSIS & Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace

PRIVACY POLICIES OF GLOBAL THINK TANKS: Brookings Institution,

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) &

Carnegie Endowment

Le Renard Etoile

UMUC:

For the record, this is my work and you are free

to use it as a reference however if turnitin flags

you, then that is your fault for trying to

plagiarize my work. If you get a lower grade,

JACKET-X CORPORATION CASE STUDY

don’t get upset, you just received a more

difficult professor.

2

PRIVACY POLICIES OF GLOBAL THINK TANKS: The BrookingsInstitution, CSIS & 3 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Table of Contents

Introduction P.3Privacy Policies & Foreign Policy Research Institutes P.5Privacy Policy: The Brookings Institution P.5Privacy Policy: Center for Strategic & International Studies P.7Privacy Policy: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace P.8Suggested Confidentiality Variations to Shield Patrons & Advance Structural Constancy P.10Conclusion P.12References P.14

Suggested Confidentiality Variations to Shield

Patrons & Advance Structural Constancy


Introduction

Liberty is one of the primary facets that comprise American

values lucidly defined in the U.S. Constitution. Distinguished

liberties inside the Constitution incorporate the entitlement to

express uncensored opinions, choice of religious practice, “the

due of unrestricted affiliation, liberty from needless pursuit

then capture, as well as liberty from self-implication” (Everett-

Church, 2011, pp. 124-125). Moreover, the Supreme Court

arbitrated on a myriad of litigations and lucidly established

liberties as well as their limits for the American public via

clarification of constitutional rights. However, these freedoms

have limits such as “liberty of discourse has boundaries as one

cannot scream “bomb in a cinema… initiating an alarm” (Schenck,

1919). One liberty, although not noticeably highlighted

constitutionally, is the right to privacy. Supreme Court

arbitrations have advanced and still clarified privacy with

regard to federal limits. Cases like “Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), and Roe v. Wade were all momentous litigations

that concluded that the right to privacy was shielded


constitutionally, despite no clear indication in the

Constitution” (McBride, 2006). Moreover, this due to

confidentiality has expounded by lawmaking gradually and

developed to comprise privacy prerogatives with regard to groups

and persons. Finally, in 1973, the Department of Health,

Education and Welfare (HEW) issued a Congressional report that

houses four fundamental confidentiality values that need

observation: notice, choice, access, and security. “Disclosure

in actions plus defense for clandestine data must be disclosed to

every invested customer; an individual should have the option to

furnish sensitive compartmentalized information and supervise the

fashion in which information is employed; the user should have

access to this data; and, lastly, the answerable group caching

the client’s sensitive data must impart a sound tier of defense

to protect this information” (The Privacy Act of 1974). Albeit

legislation has advanced since individuals began to utilize the

World Wide Web in the early 1990s, yielding acts such as COPPA

for children’s protection online and required information

security for corporations like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, no


monopoly for power on matters of privacy and law enforcement, as

the Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and

additional federal establishments generally have some monitoring

in the sector.

Privacy Policies & Foreign Policy Research Institutes

Through progress of information apparatuses and universality

with personal data entry worldwide, the difficulties in securing

sensitive data have increased. As a result of federal and client

demands, establishments are required to enact privacy statements

for how user data will be utilized. As a result of, information

procurement online via sheets, customer profiles, cookies, web

assessments, and user activities, organizations have had to make

available privacy policies to site visitors on the basis of the

HEW 1973 document.

While businesses and corporations are mandated to have

privacy policies to appease users, government ‘think-tanks’ share

just as an important role for having privacy policies. This is

key because ‘think-tanks’ have enough clout to influence the

political decision making process. According to Thomas Dye, an


advocate of “Elite Theory”, think tanks are significant since the

notion postulates:

… Abundant control is established – and stems from positionsin public institutions and people holding topmost official roles harness clout whether they do openly to sway specific rulings or not (Dye, 2002, p. 7).

Therefore, the clout of a foreign policy institute to sway

the political choice deciding methodology ought to be brought

under audit not just for conventional toils offline, but also

online and especially concerning the way privacy issues are dealt

with. The Foreign Policy Research Institute harbors “an almanac

of defense and intercontinental dealings institutes numbering

“more than 4,500 groups from 126 countries worldwide” (Director

of security, n.d.) plus delivers an annual directory titled ‘The

Global ‘Go-To Think Tanks’” (Think Tanks and Foreign Policy

Program, n.d.). The 2011 version of “Go-To Think Tanks” contains

“allusions to 5,329 institutes deemed foremost from groups

worldwide and also lists the top institutes within the United

States for security and international affairs” (McGann, 2012, p.

17). The index comprises the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace (#3), the Center for Strategic &


International Studies (CSIS) (# 4), and the Brookings Institute

(#1) (McGann, 2012, p. 43). These three ‘think-tanks’ merit

scrutiny because each one of them stand out as the most prominent

in their industry but have privacy policies that need improvement

in several areas including: data storage, third party

involvement, and information security.

Privacy Policy:

Brookings Institute

The Brookings Institute which is one of the oldest “American

liberal think tank based in Washington, D.C tasked with

conducting research and education in the social sciences,

primarily in economics, metropolitan policy, and global economy

and development”(Tikannen, 2012.; Brookings Institute-About,

n.d.). Ranked as the top global think tank, “As a nonprofit

public policy organization, Brookings’ mission is to conduct

high-quality, independent research and, based on that research,

to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance

three broad goals: strengthen the American democracy, foster the

economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all


Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous and

cooperative international system” (Brookings-About, n.d.).

Honorary Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York mentioned in a

speech on August 28, 2007, “Brookings has risen above

partisanship…and that is not an easy thing to do in this town

which is sort of built on partisanship” (Brookings Institution-

Reputation, n.d.).

The Brookings Institute has a published privacy policy

covering: data collection, online orders, surveys, customer

service and profile, aggregate information, personally

identifiable information, agents, legal disclaimers, log files,

cookies, transparent images, security and changes in policy for

site usage”(Brookings Privacy Policy, 2008). One item within

Brookings’ privacy policy is that, “We provide you the

opportunity to opt out of having your personally identifiable

information used for any purpose as well as…correct, update or

deactivate your personally identifiable information via email at

[email protected] or postal mail” (Privacy Policy,

2008) which indicates compliance with the ‘access’ component for

mailto:[email protected]


users making it easy to reach. However, in a following statement,

the wording could be manipulated to imply information exchange

with third parties since “we use third parties to provide

fulfillment and processing functions on our site…we may share

information as necessary for the third party to provide those

services.” It is possible that third-parties are not bound by

Brookings’ Privacy Statement so this would act as a ‘loophole’

and market services to the users with unwanted mail and like. The

‘think-tank’ is also compliant with regards to ‘notice since “…if

we make material changes to this policy, we will notify you here,

by email, or by means of a notice on our home page” (Privacy

Policy, 2008). The institute’s policy also states that the

security used to “encrypt sensitive personal information is using

Secure Sockets Layer technology (SSL)” (About Us, n.d.). This

raises two issues. The first, while abstract, is that any data

that has been encrypted on the web no matter how deeply and

securely stored, can always be compromised by a skilled

‘cracker.’ The second issue is that SSL technology is considered

outdated in favor of Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol for


a few reasons. First, the “SSL cipher suites have a weaker key

derivation process; half of the master key that is established is

fully dependent on the MD5 hash function, which is not resistant

to collisions and there is not considered secure”(NIST, 2012, p.

160). Second, “matching cryptographic keys are utilized for

dispatch validation and encryption so if one is decoded, all the

rest become compromised” (NIST, 2012, p. 160).Third, SSL’s design

makes it vulnerable to man-in the middle and length extension

attacks”(Rescorla, 2009). For this rationale, “any SSL

implementation is not able to be validated by FIPS 140-2” (NIST,

2012, p. 33). In comparing The Brookings Institution to the HEW

1973, the ‘think tank’s privacy policy strong in access, choice

and fair in notice but it needs improvement in the security

as well as with wording since there are areas that can easily be

misinterpreted as their information is accessible by others.

Privacy Policy: The Center for Strategic & International

Studies (CSIS)

Another prominent foreign policy think tank, the Center for

Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), is a “bipartisan,


nonprofit group” (CSIS, 2012) whose mission is to “cultivate

answers to issues facing the world, mainly concentrating on means

to promote American greatness in directing the world toward a

bright future” (CSIS, 2012). CSIS’ privacy policy entails:

information procurement, third party information sharing and

usage, along with IP tracing for website maximization” (CSIS

Privacy Policy, n.d.). Their confidentiality statement is rather

compressed when correlated to the Brooking Institute’s

procedures. In addition, there is no reference to any ‘notice’

for changes as well as for ‘security’ and has questionable

wording with regards to ‘choice’ and ‘access’. Additionally,

several facets in this statement appear conflicting. The first

sentence inside CSIS’ statement is that, “…We do not procure any

separately classifiable data concerning users throughout the

website” (CSIS, n.d.). The following sentence then acts to

refute the statement and observes data is collected if “… you

consent to share with us either directly, by email … or by

filling out digital sheets” (CSIS, n.d.). Such ‘language’ would

seemingly perplex guests of the website throughout the privacy


policy. Furthermore, the statement proceeds to ambiguously

proclaim that third parties don’t purchase or obtain sensitive

data from CSIS users, unless these groups are sent data “… to

execute delegated duties …” (CSIS, n.d.); this wording makes it

difficult to understand all the terms of CSIS’ privacy statement.

While CSIS does seem to suggest a chance for individuals to

withdraw, it doesn’t offer guidelines on how to achieve this.

Lastly, CSIS makes no mention of the ‘security’ that would be

deployed to guard any personal identifiable information. Thus,

CSIS has a very bare minimalistic privacy policy and needs

considerable improvement in ‘security’, ‘notice, ‘access’ and

choice since it is not as substantive and reassuring as criteria

illustrated by HEW 1973, the foundation for today’s privacy

policies, would entail.

Privacy Policy: The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a

“private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to

advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active

international engagement by the United States ”(Carnegie-About


Us, 2012). The mission of the Carnegie ‘think-tank’ is “to

contribute to global security, stability, and prosperity

requiring a permanent international presence and a multinational

outlook at the core of its operations” (Carnegie-About Us, 2012).

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has a

published privacy policy that covers: data collection, emails,

surveys, article referrals, children usage, usage tracking, third

party services, security, opt out policy and consent, third party

information distribution and usage, along with user session

tracing for site maximization (Carnegie Endowment Privacy Policy,

2012). What makes Carnegie’s privacy policy stand apart from

both CSIS and Brookings is that it fulfills coincides with all

facets of the HEW 1973 components: ‘access’, ‘notice’, ‘choice’

and ‘security’. Furthermore, all the facets of the privacy policy

are more lucidly explained so that no misconception or confusion

can be inferred. For example, the privacy policy begins with the

statement“…we collect specific kinds of data about users; we feel

you must fully comprehend our policy and the terms and conditions

surrounding the capture and use of that data. This privacy


statement reveals what data we gather and how it is utilized”

(Carnegie Privacy Policy, 2012). This is the most thorough

disclaimer because it lays out all the condition on the table and

there is no questionable wording or chances of ‘fooling’ the user

by indirectly suggesting that information is collected. The think

tank shows its compliance with ‘access’ in the statement, “…

under no circumstances is any information about an individual

user divulged to a third party“(Carnegie Privacy Policy, 2012).

For ‘notice’, the think tank states “…if we decide to change our

privacy policy, we will post those changes on this page so that

you are always aware of what information we collect, how we use

it, and under what circumstances we disclose it” (Carnegie

Privacy Policy, 2012).To add an additional guarantee, the think

tank offers a point of contact should any complications emerge:

“If you believe you have received unwanted, unsolicited email

sent via this system or purporting to be sent via this system,

please forward a copy of that email with your comments for

review”(Carnegie Privacy Policy, 2012). Also, the policy “…

aligned with the Federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act


of 1998 (COPPA), we will never knowingly request personally

identifiable information from anyone under the age of 13 without

requesting parental consent” (Carnegie Privacy Policy, 2012).

They have access to personal information needed to perform their

functions, but may not use it for other purposes” (Carnegie

Private Policy, 2012). With regards to information sharing, “…we

will not share data about individual customers with any third

party, save to conform with applicable ruling or legitimate

lawful procedure or to shield the personal welfare of our

customers or others” (Carnegie Privacy Policy, 2012). For

security, the think tank“…operates secure data networks protected

by industry standard firewall and password protection systems.

Our security and privacy policies are periodically reviewed and

enhanced as necessary and only authorized individuals have access

to the information provided by our customers” (Carnegie Privacy

Policy, 2012). Lastly, it mentions if there are any questions

please contact them and offers abundant methods to contact them.

In essence, Carnegie Endowment shows that it cares for its users

and the like foremost and goes into detail to thoroughly explain


the responsibilities of each section. In juxtaposition to the

Brookings Institution and CSIS, the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace stands out as an example of an organization

that meets the standards set by HEW 1973 for ‘choice’, ‘access’,

‘security’ and ‘notice’.

Suggested Confidentiality Variations to Shield Patrons & Advance

Structural Constancy

On preliminary inspection of the foreign policy think tanks

– all three address some, if not all facets, of the HEW 1973

guidelines and endow customers with security and bring elasticity

in information usage to all groups. CSIS has the feeblest,

shadowed by an adequate Brookings Institute, and finally the

Carnegie Endowment’s is near perfect. The following

recommendations are for each organization to guard customers more

effectively, offer groups with elasticity in utilizing procured

private data and develop structural constancy.

As a result of the tragic absence of lucidity and inadequate

privacy notes, CSIS should revise their whole policy, utilizing

HEW 1973 for reference along with points from the 1998 Federal


Trade Commission Report to Congress, which augments HEW 1973’s

assistance and magnifies on the machinery behind the Web, which

was nonexistent during that time” (Fair Information Practice

Principles, 1998). Aspects in CSIS’s redrafted privacy statement

must contain notice “limits of how data is procured, the

applications of such data, those beneficiaries who can utilize

the information, the type of information procured, and actions

used thru CSIS for upholding defense for information procured”

(Fair Information Practice Principles, 1998).

Moreover, a customer ought to be bestowed an accompanying

option and approval for portioning information, be accommodated

with clearance and be granted the means to alter information, the

assurance of veracity and protection has to be guaranteed to the

customer and a requirement of how these statues will be applied

via self-administration, confidential ways or via federal

oversight (Fair Information Practice Principles, 1998).

Attentions related to COPPA, the Children’s Online Privacy

Protection Act need be attended to in the privacy policy. COPPA

is the ruling that took into account online procurement of data


for individuals younger than 13 (COPPA, 1998). Furthermore, CSIS

needs to consider, once devising this novel plan, that they do

not seal potential possibilities of information utilization and

permit flexibility in data procurement and information usage,

while observing any pertinent rules. In crafting too many

constraints, CSIS may discover there is comparatively slight

worth for procurement and hence later use. Also, it could assist

individuals tasked with rewriting CSIS’s privacy policy to

additionally utilize Brookings Institute and especially Carnegie

Endowment’s guidelines for allusion.

Modifications to the Brooking Institution’s privacy

policy would be nominal as they already are compliant with HEW

1973. Direction is provided on procurement, usage notices,

access, and security. However, it would benefit the Brookings

Institute to expand on their Privacy Policy, similar to the

Carnegie Endowment’s, to elucidate any questionable statements.

It could befit Brookings Institute to recognize in the Privacy

Policy section potential defense vulnerabilities and tactical

measures they have undertook to lower threats in impending


defense upgrades to defend the consumer’s card digits and private

data. Brookings should change their SSL to TCL to ensure less

potential ‘man in the middle or extension attacks’ by crackers

who seek sensitive compartmentalized information of users. This

would soothe any concerns that customers may have about their

information being compromised and enhance privacy protection for

customers. Furthermore, a clause should be incorporated to

indicate adherence to COPPA’s guidelines. Lastly, Brookings

should lucidly explain their policies in the same fashion as the

Carnegie Endowment because there are sections that are vague and

seem almost contradictory such as information sharing with third

parties. These changes would also give the Brookings Institute

more flexibility to use consumer information if their guidelines

are clearly stated

Finally, as stated earlier, the Carnegie Endowment’s

confidentiality statement is virtually faultless and would be an

excellent example for other think tanks to utilize. It covers all

HEW 1973 standards, adheres to COPPA, explains thoroughly how

information is collected and is well rounded. It allows the think


tank enough flexibility to use personal information because how

the privacy policy is explained should be soothing enough to

instill comfort in consumers. Therefore, think tanks with loosely

explained privacy statements would benefit exponentially if their

privacy statements mirror the Carnegie Endowment’s Privacy

Policy.

Conclusion

In the end, the customer has personal confidentiality

defended via judicial elucidation of the Constitution, or via

national rulings. The policing of these privileges are tasked to

a myriad of different tiered authorities; nonetheless, the FTC

has occupied a further eminent part of enforcement recently. The

managing values on defending individual confidentiality are

established in the 1973 HEW columns of ‘notice’, ‘choice’,

‘access’, and ‘security’. It is up to any federal or private

establishment, to certify that they cultivate comprehensive

privacy guidelines that harmonize with industry standards as well

as government rules to ensure patrons are sufficiently guarded.

Now is the time to audit industry-wide rules, suggest placement


on policies that defend citizens from privacy abuses, update

lawmaking and elucidate the federal role, and warrant that

sufficient security is present. If institutions in the foreign

policy think tank industry adapt privacy policies like that of

the Carnegie Endowment, more organizations can enjoy increased

flexibility to use personal information and consumers


References

1. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132. (1925). Retrievedfrom http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/case.html

2. Center for Strategic and International Studies (2012).About Us. Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved from http://csis.org/about-us

3. Center for Strategic Studies Privacy Policy. (n.d.). Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved from http://csis.org/privacy-policy

4. COPPA (1998) Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. COPPA. Retrieved from http://www.coppa.org/coppa.htm

5. Director of security and international affairs think tanks. (n.d.). Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://fpri.org/research/thinktanks/directory/about.html

6. Dunning, J. (2009, June 18). FTC raps Sears for unleashing spyware on consumers. The Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/ftc-raps-sears-for-unleashing-spyware-on-consumers

7. Dye, T. R. (2002). Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration, (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

8. Everett-Church, R. (2011). Privacy Law and the Internet. Custom Textbook for CSEC 620. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

9. Fair Information Practice Principles. (1998, June). (Section III of the Privacy Online: Report to Congress).

http://csis.org/privacy-policy

http://csis.org/about-us

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/case.html

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/case.html


Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/fairinfo.shtm#Fair%20Information%20Practice%20Principles

10. Greene, S. (2006). Security Policies and Procedures Principles and Practices. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

11. McBride, A. (2006). Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html

12. McGann, J. G., Ph.D. (2012, January 18). The Global Go To Think Tanks Report. Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://fpri.org/research/thinktanks/GlobalGoToThinkTanks2011.pdf

13. McMillan, R. (2008, January 8). Sears sued over privacy breach. InfoWorld. Retrieved from http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/sears-sued-over-privacy-breach-363

14. Mello, J. P., Jr. (2011, December 26). Confidential client list safe from anonymous, says hacker target. PC World. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/247028/confidential_client_list_safe_from_anonymous_says_hacker_target.html

15. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. Brandeis Dissenting.(1966). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html

16. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2012, June 29). Implementation Guidance for FIPS PUB 140-2 and the Cryptographic Module Validation Program. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Retrieved from http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/fips140-2/FIPS1402IG.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/fips140-2/FIPS1402IG.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/fips140-2/FIPS1402IG.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html


http://www.pcworld.com/article/247028/confidential_client_list_safe_from_anonymous_says_hacker_target.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/247028/confidential_client_list_safe_from_anonymous_says_hacker_target.html

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/sears-sued-over-privacy-breach-363

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/sears-sued-over-privacy-breach-363

http://fpri.org/research/thinktanks/GlobalGoToThinkTanks2011.pdf

http://fpri.org/research/thinktanks/GlobalGoToThinkTanks2011.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html


17. Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438. (1928). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html

18. Privacy Online: A Report to Congress. (1998, June). Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/toc.shtm

19. Rescorla, E. (2009, November 5). Understanding the TLS Renegotiation Attack. Educated Guesswork. Retrieved from http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2009/11/understanding_the_tls_renegoti.html

20. Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47. (1919). Retrievedfrom http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZO.html

21. Subramanian, R. (2008). Computer Security, Privacy, and Politics: Current Issues, Challenges, and Solutions. (pp. 43-46). IGI Global. Retrieved from http://proquestcombo.safaribooksonline.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu

22. The Brookings Institution (2008, October 15). Privacy Policy. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/about/privacy-policy

23. The Brookings Institution (2012). Brooking’s Reputation. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/about/reputation.

24. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2012).About Us. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrievedfrom http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/

25. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (n.d.).Privacy Policy for the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. Retrieved from

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/

http://www.brookings.edu/about/reputation

http://www.brookings.edu/about/privacy-policy

http://www.brookings.edu/about/privacy-policy

http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2009/11/understanding_the_tls_renegoti.html

http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2009/11/understanding_the_tls_renegoti.html

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/toc.shtm




http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/index.cfm?fa=privacy

26. The Privacy Act of 1974. (n.d.) Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved from http://epic.org/privacy/1974act/

27. Think Tanks and Foreign Policy Program. (n.d.). Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://fpri.org/research/thinktanks

28. Tikannen, A. (2012). Brookings Institution. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81236/Brookings-Institution

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81236/Brookings-Institution

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81236/Brookings-Institution

http://epic.org/privacy/1974act/



Date post:	05-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CSEC 630- A Review of Foreign Policy Institutes

Documents