Requesting all records of the Clipper review panel
This is a draft, which will be sent out within a day or two. John Karl Bell Deputy Director of Administration Freedom of Information Act Officer National Institute of Standards and Technology Building 101, Room A-110 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Dear Mr. Bell: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. $ 552, on behalf of Mr. John Gilmore for all agency records pertaining to and utilized by the Skipjack review panel ("Panel"). This request also requests access to records which must be made available under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"), 5 U.S.C. App. II (1972). Section 8(b)(2) of the FACA requires that the supervising agency for an advisory committee must assemble and maintain records for the committee; Section 8(b)(3) of the FACA provides that such records are subject to the FOIA. The Panel's review is being performed pursuant to the President's direction that "respected experts from outside the government [] be offered access to the confidential details of the algorithm to assess its capabilities and publicly report their finding." The Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology sent letters of invitation to potential reviewers. This request for records includes, but is not limited to: all records relating to the selection of the Panel members; all records of the Panel's activities and use of funds [FACA $ 12(a)]; the charter of the Panel [FACA $ 9(c)]; all notices of Panel meetings [FACA $ 10(a)(2)]; all written determinations to close any part of a Panel meeting [FACA $ 10(d)]; all records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendices, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda or other documents which were made available to or prepared by the committee [FACA $$10(b) & (c)]. For instance, the Panel's interim report states that: We attended an initial meeting at the Institute for Defense Analyses Supercomputing Research Center (SRC) from June 21-23. At that meeting, the designer of SKIPJACK provided a complete, detailed description of the algorithm, the rationale for each feature, and the history of the design. The head of the NSA evaluation team described the evaluation process and its results. Other NSA staff briefed us on the LEAF structure and protocols for use, generation of device keys, protection of the devices against reverse engineering, and NSA's history in the design and evaluation of encryption methods contained in SKIPJACK. Additional NSA and NIST staff were present at the meeting to answer our questions and provide assistance. All staff members were forthcoming in providing us with requested information. All records pertaining to this and other meetings of the Panel are included within the scope of this FOIA/FACA request. If the requested records are not in the possession of your agency, I ask that you forward this request to any agency that you believe may have records that are responsive to this request. In the alternative, I ask that you inform me of other agencies that might have such records. As you know, the FOIA provides that even if some requested material is properly exempted from mandatory disclosure, all segregable portions must be released. [5 U.S.C. $ 552(b)] If any or all material covered by this request is withheld, please inform me of the specific exemptions that are being claimed. If any of the requested material is released with deletions, I ask that each deletion be marked to indicate the exemption(s) being claimed to authorize each particular withholding. In addition, I ask that your agency exercise its discretion to release information that may be technically exempt but where withholding would serve no important public interest. As you know, the FOIA provides that agencies may reduce or waive fees if it would be "in the public interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the public." [5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(4)(A)] Release of this material would be of benefit to the public because of the importance of public discussion of technology which can enhance personal privacy. Moreover, in previous FOIA requests to NIST, Mr. Gilmore has amply demonstrated his ability and willingness to disseminate such information to the general public. I therefore ask that you waive any fees relating to this request. Mr. Gilmore promises to pay up to $1000 in processing costs should this fee waiver be denied, so that NIST can begin processing this request while you rule on the propriety of this fee waiver. If you have any questions regarding this request, please telephone me at the above number. I would be happy to discuss ways in which this request could be clarified or somewhat redesigned to reflect the agency's filing system and speed the search for records. As provided under the FOIA, I will expect a reply within 10 working days. Sincerely yours, Lee Tien On behalf of Mr. John Gilmore
participants (1)
-
gnu