Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!pbox!okstate!ks
From: ks@a.cs.okstate.edu (Kurt F. Sauer)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: An interesting message from SECURITY-DIGEST@RUTGERS
Message-ID: <2670@okstate.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Oct-87 21:12:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: okstate.2670
Posted: Fri Oct  9 21:12:33 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 07:13:30 EDT
References: <7449@reed.UUCP> <6536@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: ks@okstate.UUCP (Kurt F. Sauer)
Followup-To: /dev/fisa
Organization: Decision Studies Group, Inc., Box 701401, Tulsa OK 74170-1401
Lines: 55
Keywords: nsa; foreign intelligence surveillance act (fisa)
Summary: FISA Exists
Comments: *PLEASE* make legal followups to some OTHER group


In article <6536@brl-smoke.ARPA> Doug Gwyn <gwyn@brl.arpa> writes:
>
>Overseas cable traffic has been encrypted for decades.  Last I heard,
>it was against the law for anyone (including NSA) to intercept such
>communications, but that of course doesn't mean they don't.  It's
>strange how, as comes to light every once in a while, government
>agencies continually place themselves "above the law".  It's a
>serious problem, in my estimation; if a demonstrably necessary
>governmental function cannot be accomplished within the law, change
>the law (probably by repeal of strait-jacketing regulations)!
>
I urge you to recall that:

1.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides for the
interception of communications without warrant under certain circumstances,
and with an in camera warrant under other circumstances; these provisions
entail communications among points in the United States.

2.  Any constitutional guarantee to privacy (I contend there is no such
guarantee; it is legislated, not constituted) applies only to U.S. citizens,
and the Congress (intelligence committees of both U.S. House and U.S. Senate
included) agrees.  It has, as reports have it, either agreed to the prior
orders of the NSA dating to President H. S. Truman, or have expressly
agreed to Defense's position regarding international interception and
observation.

In parting, I must also point out that some activities, such as America's
ability to monitor, intercept, intrude in, falsely network into, interfere
with, or decrypt others' communications, must remain completely covert.
NSA has suffered enough serious security breaches; it needs no help from
"open sky" rules or rules which indicate abilities directly or indirectly.

I suggest that you take a second look at some of the founding and
exponent documents; they're interesting reading, even if you don't
care about the N.S.A., for example:

     V. James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace, New York: Penguin, 1983, 0-14-
006748-5.

     George A. Brownell, et al., The Origin and Development of the National
Security Agency, Laguna Hills, Calif.: Aegean Park Press, 1981, 0-89412-
054-9.

     David Kahn, Kahn on Codes, New York: Macmillan, 1983, 0-02-560640-9.

     U.S. House of Representatives, Government Operations Committee,
Subcmte. on Government Information and Individual Rights, Interception of
Nonverbal Communications by Federal Intelligence Agencies, 94th Congress,
1st and 2nd Sessions, Washington: GPO, 1976.

Other documents are available; try *your* hand at researching the Giant
Ear.  It's...challenging.

	Kurt F. Sauer
	Tulsa, OK