On June 11, 1975, I wrote you on one of the most crucial issues confronting our country; proposed expansion of the FBI's computer and telecommunications network to include message switching capability. I regret that the response I received, signed by James Cannon, A Presidential Assistant, dated July 11, 1975, did not deal meaningfully with the issues involved.

In view of your previous concerns in this area, I feel you would really want a more detailed response to reach me. There is substantial public evidence available to show that the FBI seeks a monopoly over Federal criminal data and its transmission, rousing apprehensions that in this manner the FBI could evolve into a national police force.

On May 27, 1975, I wrote the Attorney General, seeking the present and projected status of message switching. The July 16, 1975, response from Deputy Attorney General Harold Tyler states, in part:

"The FBI is not preparing to engage in message switching other than that as described in its plan."

This statement does not dovetail with information contained in the July 11, 1975, letter from Mr. Cannon, indicating that message switching is, "currently under review within the Justice Department."

Under the already published plan, circulated by the FBI April 14, 1975, the scope of proposed message switching is all-inclusive, despite claims that initially it will be limited. The central issue is whether there will be any message switching at all of state and local criminal justice information by any Federal agency. Just as a person should not tolerate a small cancer, so our society should not allow limited message switching by the FBI or any similar organization.

The Justice Department is, according to Mr. Tyler's response, pursuing implementation of the original plan for limited message switching. Justice seems, therefore, to be ignoring the status of the proposal as described by Mr. Cannon. I would appreciate knowing if Justice is pursuing this course with White House knowledge and authorization. I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Tyler's response.

A substantive expression of concern from you is critical. I would deeply appreciate knowing your views on the following questions, which were asked in my original letter but not answered by Mr. Cannon's response.

1) Does the Federal government have a Constitutional obligation to provide data processing or telecommunications services designed to primarily satisfy state and local criminal justice missions?

2)

Should the Federal government manage or control state and local telecommunications functions dealing with criminal matters?

3) Could FBI message switching result in absorption of
state and local criminal data systems?

4) If the above is possible, would there be a potential for significant abuse by an FBI-controlled centralized system?

5) Could such a system be used to monitor state and local law enforcement operations, allowing Federal pressure to be exerted on these agencies?

6) Could such a system be used to gather data on individuals to which the Federal government is not entitled?

7) Could an agency controlling such a system engage in surreptitious intelligence gathering?

8) Do any safeguards exist to prevent such activities?

Finally, Mr. President, although the July 11, 1975, letter indicates that my concerns and letter have been forwarded to the Attorney General for comment nevertheless this is an issue so important that only you can expedite clarification and, in a timely fashion, affect policy.

[From The Denver Post, June 4, 1975]

POLICE STATE FEARED: FBI RECORDS-PROPOSAL DENOUNCED

(By David Burnham)

WASHINGTON—An agency within the Justice Department has denounced a plan by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for expanded communications and recordkeeping on the ground that the computerized system might lead to federal control of the police.

The blunt criticism of the FBI from a sister agency in the Justice Department was made in a 19-page report of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, made available to the New York Times Tuesday.

It echoed similar complaints from the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, the Domestic Council's Committee on Privacy, and the chairman of both the House and Senate constitutional rights subcommittees.

PLAN APPROVAL

Despite the wide opposition, the FBI reportedly still is aggressively seeking approval of its plan, and at least one White House official has registered a complaint about a recent Justice Department action that he said appeared to push the bureau closer to its goal.

In a second development concerning federal computers, the General Accounting Office has recommended that the Agriculture Department be prohibited from going ahead with its $398 million eight-year plan to develop a computer information system because it fails to guard the privacy of millions of farmers and department employees whose names are contained in the agency's existing files. In a third development, Deputy Defense Secretary David Cooke told a House government operations subcommittee Tuesday that dossiers the Army had compiled on Vietnamese-war protesters and other dissidents still might exist in federal intelligence agencies that exchanged information with the Defense Department.

Cooke said the Army files, originally compiled in the late 1960s, either had been destroyed or awaited orders for destruction, but that he was "relatively certain" the information had been exchanged with other agencies such as the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.

A copy of the report criticizing the FBI's plans to broaden its existing criminal justice information system-and the bureau's lengthy response-were made available to Rep. John Moss, D-Calif., after the lawmaker had made repeated demands for them over the last 42 months.

The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration report said the existing National Crime Information Center of the FBI raised many serious questions when combined with the proposal to permit the bureau to enlarge its capability with a technical improvement known as "autodated message switching."

RAISES CONCERN

The report said the proposal to enlarge the FBI's computer capability raised

concerns over:

The development of the "big brother" system.

Reduced state input and control over security, confidentiality and use of stateoriginated data.

Increased dangers resulting from use of nonupdated, and hence inaccurate, centrally maintained "rap sheets."

The report further said that "it is critical to recognize that decisions in these areas raise basic questions re: federal-state relations and the concept of federalism."

Late last year, in a letter to William B. Saxbe, then the attorney general, the acting director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, John Eger, said he feared the FBI expansion "could result in the absorption of state and local criminal data systems into a potentially abusive, centralized federally controlled communications and computer information system."

The specific subject of concern is an FBI proposal to add equipment that would automatically switch local messages through the bureau's existing, National

Crime Information Center. The center now provides law enforcement agencies in one part of the country with information, such as charges filed and dates when an individual was arrested, in another part of the country.

"Any agency controlling a message switching capacity" Rep. Moss said, “could also engage in surreptitious intelligence gathering.

"No system capable of central monitoring of state or local operations should be authorized," he said, "until adequate safeguards are established and this has not been the case up to now."

The FBI response to the criticism by its sister agency said the FBI had long recognized the "sanctity of the privacy of the individual." It insisted that it was fully concerned with "security and privacy considerations."

[From the Washington Post, June 5, 1975.]

2 PROPOSED FOR U.S. COMPUTER BANKS ON INDIVIDUALS HIT

(By Donald M. Rothberg, Associated Press)

Proposals for two federal computerized data banks that would contain millions of names were critized yesterday in Congress and within the administration as being dangerous and unnecessary.

One, an FBI proposal to broaden an existing computerized criminal history information system linking police departments around the country, was described by a White House aide as carrying the potential for violating "the spirit if not the letter of federal privacy legislation."

The other was a Department of Agriculture plan to purchase a $398 million computer system to centralize department records that the General Accounting Office said include "personal information on its employees as well as on farmers' incomes and financial positions."

Rep. John E. Moss, (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Government Information subcommittee, made public the criticisms of both systems. Moss, who had asked the GAO to examine the Agriculture Department proposal, forwarded the GAO recommendation that it be killed to the chairman of the House and Senate agriculture appropriations subcommittees. GAO is a congressional watchdog agency.

Moss also said he would oppose the FBI plan.

Among the documents made public was a letter dated May 12 from John Eger, acting director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, to Deputy Attorney General Harold R. Tyler Jr.

Eger wrote that the FBI proposal "could result in the absorption of state and local criminal data systems into a potentially abusive, centralized, federally controlled communications and computer information system."

"One basic concern," he added, "is the threat posed by a system which could be used by a federal law enforcement agency to monitor in detail the day-to-day operations of state and local law enforcement authorities."

Eger noted that only four states so far have been willing to include their criminal history information in such a system, and he questioned whether there was any need for it.

Another report critical of the FBI proposal came from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the federal agency which has disbursed billions of dollars in crime-fighting grants to state and local governments.

The LEAA study supported the principle of computerizing criminal history records but questioned whether the information should be centralized under federal control.

Maintaining such files in independent state systems would "be most effective in satisfying law enforcement needs without unduly endangering individual rights," the LEAA study said.

In a memorandum, the FBI contended the LEAA had once supported its proposal for a computerized criminal history system and should continue to do so. The GAO report on the Agriculture Department proposal said USDA officials began acquiring the new computer system before they had determined their needs.

The GAO noted that Congress became concerned because it had not been fully informed of plans for the project and because the USDA data bank "could pose a serious threat to the privacy of individuals, particularly since such a network might be expanded to link all government computers."

98-001 - 78 - 3