asked one of the agency heads that was in testifying for computer funds if anyone outside the Federal Government had a terminal on that computer. His reply was yes. Mr. LINOWES. First, the first part of your comment, Mr. Miller, every responsible person who is knowledgeable in this field is aghast when he reads the mandate in our charge because of its broadness, its allembracing scope. We are to look into everything involving actual or potential invasions of individual privacy in the private sector and public sector except religion. So, we are very much aware that it is a tremendous job, but by the same token it is a tremendous challenge. And of equal importance and the reason I welcome the shortness of time, very candidly, is that I think technology is moving so fast, our society is moving so fast and in different directions, if our work is to be meaningful we have to complete it as quickly and as effectively as we possibly can. Giving you an answer 20 years from now is too late, even though it would be convenient in terms of workload. Therefore, I think it is up to us to use our best judgment to identify the priorities, develop them in a way that will be most intelligible and actionable, and then, if necessary, identify those areas that we feel do not warrant additional study or those areas that we respectfully suggest to Congress and the President they might consider for further study. But I see great merit in cutting off an institution like this in a fixed period of time regardless of the pressures that are required. In reference to the second point you make, the fastest growing dimension of the computer industry, as you know, sir, is core-to-core linkage, computer-to-computer linkage. We know the technology is there. At the press of a button you can combine the material that is in the files of the FBI with the files that are in the computers of colleges, with the files that are in the Civil Service Commission, commercial lending institutions. We know it is possible to link it that way. We don't know if that is taking place yet. This is one of the things we hope our hearings will bring out. If it is in place, we have a whole different scope of problems and the urgency of dealing with them. If these things are not in place, but merely the technology exists, then we have time to merely perhaps suggest safeguards. We plan to hear from the most sophisticated computer technicians in the country as well as the users, as well as those who feel they may have been aggrieved, either actually or psychologically. Frankly, personally, I feel we should be as much concerned with the appearance of an invasion of privacy as the actual invasion of privacy. Psychologically, if a person thinks a computer has something on him, it is just as important to identify that, either to dispel it or confirm it. So the job is an immense one. I would have sounded less confident if you had asked me these kinds of questions about 4 months ago, but we have analyzed, reanalyzed; and by "we" it is not the editorial "we." I mean scholars, some of the best minds familiar with the subject in the country. We have pumped their minds. We have thrown this thing at them. I feel we can bring in a credible job. However, there may be some limits as to how many of the specifically enumerated points we can give the kind of treatment to that we would hope they deserve. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure when you return the next time, we will have additional information at that point that we will be able to, well, perhaps find out where we stand and where the core-to-core information is being passed between computers. We would hope that you would have some testimony on that so that it would be conveyed to us by then. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SLACK. If there are no further questions, we thank you Mr. Chairman, Ms. Parsons, and gentlemen. Mr. LINOWES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1975. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF PRISONS Mr. SLACK. In August of this year our surveys and investigations staff submitted a report to the committee concerning the population, capacity, and utilization of Federal prisons. If there is no objection I would like to have that report printed in the hearing record. [The investigative report referred to follows:] Memorandum for the Chairman: Re Population, capacity, and utilization of Federal Prisons. AUGUST 5, 1975. By directive dated July 19, 1975, the committee requested that a study be made of the validity of prison population and capacity and utilization of existing Federal prison facilities. The inquiry has been completed and the results are included in this report. Respectfully submitted, DAVID A. SCHMIDT, Director, Surveys and Investigations Staff, Chief of the Surveys and Investigations Staff, SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS This summary highlights certain portions of the information developed during the review of inmate population, capacity, and utilization of institutions within the Federal prison system. Also, the summary includes the Investigative Staff observations on the Bureau's procedures and practices relating to its long-range construction program. Presently, the Bureau operates 50 separate correctional facilities including 16 community treatment centers and/or halfway houses, 30 institutions, and 4 camps. The total incarcerated inmate population as of June 30, 1975, was 23,566. In addition, the Bureau contracts with over 900 state and local jails for the detention of Federal offenders awaiting trail before the U. S. District Courts. There are also 400 private and local agencies under contract to provide assistance to Federal offenders in the community. It was noted that the Bureau's total population has increased from 24,540 in FY 1966 to 29,495 in FY 1975, an increase of 4,955, or about 20 percent. Two categories accounted for the major growth: (1) the incarcerated population increased from 21,478 to 23,566, a difference of 2,088, and (2) the population held in contract facilities, which increased from 2,974 to 4,955, a difference of 1,981. During this 10-year period, the incarcerated population increased about 1 percent per year, whereas the total population increased about 2 percent. Analysis of the incarcerated population shows major decreases in the number of young adult and long-term adult offenders. During the same 10-year period, the number of short-term adult and intermediate-term adult offenders increased. The Bureau projects that the incarcerated population will reach 27,860 inmates by 1985. This represents a projected increase of 4,294 inmates over |