Advanced information systems--. The regional management information systems (RMIS) – The Charlotte integrated municipal information system project-- 601 601 609 615 643 executives normative information expediter 665 Appendix 3.-Federal use of communications technology 677 Office of Telecommunications Policy--. 677 The Office of Telecommunications Policy: A brief profile of its 677 Executive Office of the President, Office of Telecommunications 693 Council for Government Communications Policy and Planning--- 728 732 737 Memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and 737 Comptroller General's report to the Congress: Review of Status of 745 747 The advanced research projects agency network (ARPANET). Comptroller General's report to the Congress: Reduction of communications costs through centralized management of multiplex systems Testing the applicability of existing telecommunication technology in the administration and delivery of social services_____ Appendix 4.-Federal use of advanced information and communications technology, preliminary report_--- Appendix 5.-Article from the Honeywell Computer Journal, "Application of the Freedom of Information Act to Electronic Data Banks"--- 754 756 774 811 FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND PLANS-FEDERAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Part 2) TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William S. Moorhead (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives William S. Moorhead and John N. Erlenborn. Also present: William G. Phillips, staff director; Norman G. Cornish, deputy staff director; and Stephen M. Daniels, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. MOORHEAD. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information today begins the second phase of its hearings on Federal use of information and communications technology to meet the needs of society. Initially we will hear witnesses from four different agencies: The Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, the General Services Administration, and the Social Security Administration. The first three have been invited to testify today and the latter on Tuesday, June 26. Our purpose is to examine four quite different information and/or communications systems in some detail. These systems are not similar in primary functions, in size, or in the amount of sophisticated technology they employ. What the subcommittee wants to do, in fact, is to examine a variety of Federal systems which demonstrate how advanced technology can be utilized to improve different kinds of Federal information activities. At the same time, we will examine what kinds of safeguards are needed in each case to protect against misuses. We want to know how each system guarantees the privacy of individual case files. We want to know what prohibitions there are to protect the public from propaganda. Each witness has been asked to describe a particular system in brief detail, to explain what kinds of information this system provides to the public, and to describe what safeguards there are to prevent misuse. In addition, each witness has been invited to comment on the need for interconnecting their system with other Federal, State, municipal, or private systems to achieve greater cost efficiency, to share information, or for any other reason. Next week and next month the subcommittee will hear another group of witnesses from agencies which provide assistance and/or guidance in the development of Federal information and communications systems. The focus will be on how utilization of these technologies by Federal offices should be planned and how policies should be formulated. Therefore, today's witnesses are asked to address those questions as well. Before we proceed, I have two brief comments to make: First, it is important to point out that questions about Federal responsibility with respect to the development and utilization of fast-developing information and communications are not new. In the past decade there have been any number of studies and reports touching on one aspect of the problem or another. They included three different reports by the House Government Operations Committee in 1965, 1966, and 1967. In 1968, the President's Task Force on Communications Policy published a thorough study. One other study which has been of special interest to the subcommittee was prepared for the President's Domestic Council in 1971. That study and report concluded that a new Federal initiative is necessary if information and communications services are to be developed to meet urgent national problems. In describing some of those problems, and the systems that might be built to solve them, the domestic council study also raised a number of difficult and even alarming questions in my mind and in the minds of others members of the subcommittee. The new technology offers great opportunities to serve society: it also offers new opportunities for abuse of the public-for invasion of privacy and for propagandizing. Finally, I would like to explain again, for purposes of clarification, that the subcommittee is primarily concerned with those Federal systems which serve the information needs of the public. By this we do not mean just those traditional "public information" services usually provided by agency public information offices. Nor do we mean that information that is provided to the press and media for distribution to the pubilc. Our definition is much broader. We understand "public information" to be all information communicated by the Federal Governfor distribution to the public. Now, without further delay, we will proceed. Our first witness today will be Mr. Robert A. Knisely, Director. Division of Community Management Systems, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Knisely will discuss the integrated municipal information system. Mr. Knisely, will you come forward, sir. STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. KNISELY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW BOOTS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS Mr. KNISELY. I would like to introduce Mr. Andrew Boots, who is my Assistant Director for Human Resources Development Systems. Mr. MOORHEAD. We are happy to welcome both of you to the subcommittee. I must say, this is an investigatory committee. When we have a quorum present, the oath will be administered to you, as we do always if both of you testify. That is not supposed to be an unfriendly welcome; it is just a practice of the subcommittee. We do welcome you and look forward very much to your testimony. Mr. KNISELY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure to appear before your committee. While attending the first World Conference on Informatics in Government last October, I was asked by the representative from Cameroon whether computers could, in my opinion, be of use to his government. After some discussion, we came to the conclusion that there was really very little information available to his government and that automating its flow and arranging its sorting would not be useful. For decisionmakers in business and government in our country, the situation is very much improved, but far from perfect. Genius has been defined as the ability to come to correct conclusions on insufficient information; I do not believe that the complex problems of American society can be solved without automation of information collection, storage, and retrieval. There simply are not enough geniuses to go around. Government in the United States primarily provides services; it does not build things. Service provision is necessarily informationintensive, as is obvious to anyone upon arrival in Washington, or upon examination of the history of the Xerox Corp. We live in an age of information, and it is choking all levels of government. During the period 1965-70 alone, the number of State and local employees increased 23 percent, a rise which even exceeded the rise in Federal employees U.S. Department of Commerce. I have been told that the costs of information handling, both manual and automated, account for at least 10 percent of the formula grant moneys disbursed by the Department of Health. Education, and Welfare. In fiscal year 1971, this cost was $1.67 billion. There is no estimating the total costs of information handling within American Government; it is almost all we do. I have a list of the reports which the State of Pennsylvania requires from the local units of government within its borders, and I am assured that although quite comprehensive, it is not complete. There are 193 entries. To my knowledge, it is the only list of its kind in the country. |