LETTER TO MR. JAMES M. FREY FROM(Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R001700010031-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 21, 2004
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: February 22, 1978
• Content Type: LETTER

OLC 77=5217/a
Approved FJ eP6Wi@)%/R/o& ~LTA*Dh 9W k601
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
2 2 rEB 19,78
I am writing in response to your request for this Agency's views on
H. R. 10076, the "Omnibus Right to Privacy Act of 1977. " The bill
proposes a number of changes in the manner in which personal
information on an individual is collected, maintained and utilized.
Most important from our viewpoint are Titles I and II of the bill.
Enclosed you will find our comments on the bill and recommendations
for several amendments. We appreciate the opportunity to comment
on legislation of this magnitude. Members of my staff are available
for detailed discussions on the legislation.
Sincerely,
SIGIn n
Acting Legislative Counsel
Distribution:
Orig - Addressee, w/encl
1 - NFAC, w/encl
1 - OGC, w/encl
1 - IG, w/encl
1 - IPS/DDA, w/encl
1 - DDO/PCS/LSN, w/encl
1 - D/Security, w/encl
1 - DDSET, w/encl
1 f OLC Subject, w/encl
W OLC 0MB Liaison, w/encl
1 - OLC Chrono, w/encl
OLC:JEC:sm (16 Feb 78)
ST
Approved For Release 2005/01/06 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001 700010031-9
 Approved For Release 2005/01/06 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001 700010031-9
VIEWS ON lI. R. 10076
This enclosure addresses the concerns of the Central. Intelligence
Agency regarding H. R. 10076, the "Omnibus Right to Privacy Act of 1977.
Title I of the bill would establish a Federal Information Practice
Board. The Board would be tasked with overseeing the gathering,
storage and retrieval of information by the Federal Government and
with monitoring the Government's compliance with various "laws that
affect informational practices, " most importantly the Freedom of
Information and the Privacy Acts. The need for the establishment of
another bureaucracy to oversee compliance is, in our view, open to
question. This Agency has been conscientious in its attempts to comply
with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts and, except for
problems related to meeting the response time requirements, has an
excellent performance record.
In addition, section 104(a)(1) of Title I provides that the Board. would
have access to all information and data in the possession of the Federal
Government. This would appear to include all levels of classified
information and, in the case of this Agency, information relating to
sensitive intelligence sources and methods. The bill, however, contains
no requirement that members or employees of the Board having access
to sensitive information obtain appropriate security clearances or access
approvals. This problem could be rectified by deleting line 11, page
10 and substituting:
"tion or data, provided, however, that the Board and its
its employees shall obtain all necessary security clearances.
Disclosure by the Board of such ... "
and by deleting "otherwise" at line 12, page 10.
Title II of the bill would extensively amend the Privacy Act
(5 U. S. C. 552a). Section (j)(1) of the Privacy Act grants the Director
of Central Intelligence the authority to exempt Agency records from .
a number of the provisions of the Act. Title II of H.:f 10076 does not
contain such an exemption.
The authority granted by the Privacy Act is necessary to protect
intelligence sources and methods (a responsibility given the Director
by 50 U. S. C. 403(d)(3)), to protect information obtained from other
agencies and foreign services and to protect sensitive national security
information. It has been applied to six specific portions of the Privacy
Act--(c)(3), (d), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (f)(i), and (g)--and then only as necessary
to protect the information on the limited grounds just mentioned. Exercise
of the Director's power to exempt the Agency has not diminished the Agency's
responsiveness under the Privacy Act by any appreciable degree, but
it has permitted the protection of very sensitive intelligence information,
Approved For Release 2005/01/06 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001 700010031-9
 Approved For Release 2005/01/06 : CIA-RDP81M00980R001700010031-9
The problems presented by the sections of the Privacy Act mentioned
above were recognized by Congress when it provided the Director of Central
Intelligence the authority to exempt the Agency from many provisions
of the Act. These same problems are presented by Title II of H. R.
10076, and, if the Director is to be able to fulfill his statutory responsibility
to protect intelligence sources and methods, any revision of the Act must
grant an exemption power.
In addition, two subsections of proposed section (e) of the Omnibus
Right to Privacy Act would prohibit this Agency from carrying out
acts essential to the performance of its mission. The problems are
outlined below. Again, the grant of an exemption power to the Director
would resolve them without damaging the thrust of the legislation.
Proposed section (e)(1)(B) of the Omnibus Right to. Privacy Act (page
32, line 12) provides that each agency that collects or maintains individually
identifiable records must provide U. S. citizens or aliens lawfully admitted
for permanent residence from whom it requests information with a signifi-
cant amount of information about the request and the requesting agency.
This Agency has a need to conduct certain investigations, in the area of
security suitability of applicants for example, under circumstances
which do not disclose Agency interest. This section, however, apparently
would prevent the Agency from conducting such investigations.
Subsection (e)(2) of the proposed Act (page 35, line 16) would limit
the situations in which information regarding an exercise of First Amendment
rights could be collected. This Agency monitors foreign radio broadcasts,
newspapers, etc., in order to determine, for example, foreign media
reaction to statements by the President, Members of Congress and
other persons. Such information is very useful to policy makers, but
this subsection of the proposed Act would seem to prohibit the Agency
from performing this function. Furthermore, foreign media are known to
employ American citizens. Because the citizenship of the author of an
article cannot be determined by the by-line, this proposed section could
preclude the Agency from reporting on any media presumed to employ
U. S. citizens. As a result, performance of this mission would be seriously
impaired. This section could also conflict with the Director's statutory
responsibility for protecting intelligence sources and methods in that it
could be construed to prohibit review of manuscripts, speeches, etc. , of
persons who have access to such information because of their relationship
with the Agency. Such review is necessary to insure that sources and
methods information is not disclosed. These clearly are not the types
of activity which the bill seeks to prevent, yet its broad terms would
have a serious impact on such functions.
Several of the provisions of the proposed Act are either unrealistic
or burdensome. Section 202(b)(6) would require a determination. within
30 working days of receipt of a request as to what information. will be
released and notification to the requestor of the determination. Because
of the large volume of material and the review necessitated by its sensitivity,
this limit appears unrealistic and should be revised. Permitting an
additional 30 days for each 200 pages to be reviewed, for example,
would bring the limitation more in line with current realities. In addition,
Approved For Release 2005/01/06 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R001 700010031-9