The National Security Agency
Eric M O'Shea
Attorney
Office of Associate General Counsel
Linda Huffman
Information Policy Office
WILLIAM B. BLACK, JR.
Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act
Appeals Authority

First posted on this page
Wednesday March 29, 2006 07:38
Updated
Monday October 8, 2007 17:54

http://cryptome.org/nsa-cryptome.htm

William Black bio.

Wikipedia William Black.

Public key crypto tutorial got Payne thinking about posible ways to break it without factoring.

We located http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/rsa2.htm

How to break public key without factoring?
I have an idea. You get to select the message or MESSAGES to encrypt.
So encrypt as many messages m0, m1, m2, m3 , .... as there are bits in the binary representation of the decryption exponent ... or maybe a few more. A few more won't hurt because the coefficents will be zero.
Maybe a set of simultaneous equations can be constructed to solve for the values of the decryption bits?
Care, of course, should be taken to chose the most advantageous messages for solution of the simultaneous equations.

I, of course, don't know for sure. But this is just a thought.

Monday October 8, 2007 17:51

Public key doesn't pass back the black and white test of crptographic algorithms.

History of NSA FOIA.

Received Monday April 17, 2006.


NSA is upsetting team members.







NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000

Serial: LIT/089/06
13 April 2006

VIA FIRST-CLASS U.S. MAIL
William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Re: Case No. 8687C/Appeal No. 3050
Dear Mr. Payne:

This letter provides clarification to the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOJA/PA) Appeal Authority's letter dated 14 March 2006, wherein he, among other things, denied your FOIA appeal. You elected FOLA as the process for requesting records from the National Security Agency. When this Agency processed your request for records under the provisions of the FOIA, it conducted a classification review of all responsive records. Based on this review, the Agency determined that the information you sought remained currently and properly classified SECRET and TOP SECRET in accordance with the criteria established in Section 1.2 of Executive Order 12958, as amended.

The Appeal Authority's letter, wherein he explained the overlap of FOIA and thi Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) processes, was for information purposes, an did not grant authority for you to submit a MDR request for the same records that had been reviewed and processed under the FOIA. As stated above, under the FOIA, this Agency conducted a line-by-line classification review of the records and determined th~ the records you sought were currently and properly classified. The same type of revie'~ would have been done under the MDR process. If you disagree with the Appeal Authority's decision to deny your appeal, you can seek judicial review as set forth in tl~ Appeal Authority's 14 March 2006 letter.

You cannot request a MDR on the same records that were reviewed under the FOIA for two years from the date of the Director of Policy's letter informing you that these records were exempt from disclosure because, among other things, they were currently and properly classified.

Sincerely,

ERIC M. O'SHEA
Attorney
Office of Associate General Counsel
(Litigation)


Hit




button.

The team [we don't use crypto to commuicate. Mental telepathy works better ... especially if you are on the same wave length.] is on the move.


Settle, settle, settle before things get far worse.

Since NSA got caught in writing in a Privacy Act criminal violation so let's push for a mandatory declassification review.

NSA legal project mood music
DOJ FOIA APPEAL

Thursday April 6, 2006

Certified and email

Linda Huffman
National Security Agency
Information Policy Office
DC323 Room S2CW113,
Suite 6884, Building SAB 2
National Security Agency
9800 Savage Road
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland 20755-6884

RE case No. 8687C/Appeal No. 3050
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsa/williamblack.htm#huffman

Dear Ms Huffman:


NSA employee William B. Black, JR, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Appeals Authority sent two similar FOIA appeal denial letters.

The first is dated February 14, 2006 and seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsa/williamblack.htm#14.


The second is dated February 22, 2006 and seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsa/williamblack.htm#22.

The only difference appears that the paragraph
You stated in your appeal letter that you believed the subject documents were improperly classified and requested a classification review. It appears you are blending the FOIA appeal process with the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) process (EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5). EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5 is the proper avenue for classification challenges. Agency policy states, if a requestor submits a request under both, the FOIA and the MDR, the Agency shall require the requestor to elect one process or the other. The request shall be treated as a FOIA unless the requested materials are subject to the MDR only. Additional information regarding the MDR process can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/isso/oversightgrouss/iscap/mdr-appeals.html. If you wish to request a classification challenge under the MDR process, please submit a separate request in writing to this Agency. Your MDR request will be processed accordingly.

is included in Black's March 14 appeal denial letter but missing in his March 22, 2006 appeal denial letter.


I demand a Mandatory Declassification Review.

I want documents forwarded me by the Department of Justice seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm without redactions.


Criminal violation of the Privacy Act 5 USC §552(a) [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#crime]and New Mexico libel law 30-11-1 [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nmcriminal/nmcriminal.htm#libel] has been committed in writing by release of the false and defaming documents see at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

Black wrote in both of his letters
This replies to your letter dated 22 November 2005, appealing the National Security Agency's (NSA) refusal to release responsive documents in their entirety pursuant to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Your initial request, the documents located, the Office of Policy's response to you dated 23 September 2005, and your letter of appeal have been reviewed. As a result of this review, I have determined that the withheld information was appropriately withheld pursuant to the exemptions cited below. The withheld information meets the standards for classification set forth in subparagraph (a) of Section 1.1 of Executive Order (EO) 12958, as amended. In addition, the information meets the specific criteria for classification established in Section 1.4(c) and (g).

The information remains currently and properly classified SECRET and TOP SECRET in accordance with the criteria established in Section 1.2 of EO 12958, as amended. The documents are classified because their exposure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave and serious damage, respectively, to national security. Accordingly, the documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

EO 12958 states
Sec. 1.8. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

....

Sandia labs department manager James Gosler, Sandia labs lawyer Harold Folley, Department of Justice lawyer David Glass representing NSA have been identified from the FOIA documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm as involved in the production of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

Only name(s) of NSA employee(s) have been redacted.

Classifying name(s) of NSA employee(s) violates Section 1.8 (a)(1) and (2) of EO 12958.


Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel rules state
Section 1.8 of Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National Security Information" ( PDF Format) provides for classification challenges by an authorized holder who believes that the classification status of certain information is improper. See http://www.archives.gov/isoo/oversight-groups/iscap/classification-challenges.html

Moreover

The agency should respond with a prompt declassification determination or inform the requestor of the agency's need for additional time to process the request. Article VIII section A(3) of the ISCAP bylaws indicates that if the appellant has not received an initial decision for a MDR within one year of its filing, the requestor may appeal directly to the ISCAP.

If the agency denies the initial request, it must notify the requestor of his or her right to file an administrative appeal. This request must be filed within 60 days of the receipt of the denial.

Section 2001.33(a)(2)(i) of the implementing directive states that the agency should normally make a determination within 60 days of the receipt of the administrative appeal or notify the requestor of a need for additional time. Article VIII section A(3) of the bylaws indicates that failure by the agency to make a final decision within 180 days will permit the requestor to appeal directly to the ISCAP.

If the agency denies the administrative appeal, it must notify the requestor in writing of the final determination and the reasons for the denial. It must notify the requestor that he or she may, within 60 days of the receipt of the notification, file an appeal with the ISCAP.

Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) [http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm]states
Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall--

(i) determine within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and

(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.

NSA never did respond my June 10, 1996 FOIA.

Department of Justice finally responded to my June 10, 1996 FOIA on November 20, 2004 [http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm] instead of the 20 days required for NSA response.

Black was required to respond to my November 22, 2005 appeal within 20 days.

But Black did not respond until March 14 and March 22, 2006.


This matter has been going on for 14 years.

Black wrote in both of his letters
Since your appeal has been denied, you are hereby advised of your right to seek judicial review of my determination pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) in the United States District Court in the district which you reside, in which you have your principal place of business, in which the Agency's records are situated (U.S. District Court of Maryland), or in the District of Columbia.

Ms Huffman, Black points out that we could proceed to second lawsuit with NSA.

Here's our first NSA lawsuit: http://www.jya.com/nsasuit.txt
, http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/whp122397.htm [Austria] or http://www.prosefights.org/cibolafraud/nsasuit.txt which was required for visibility.

We feel that settlement is preferable.

Therefore, I ask that you respond within 20 working days.

Otherwise, I feel that we should proceed to ISCAP to try to settle these unfortunate matters.


Sincerely

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037


Distribution

Thomas DePriest, Esq
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of General Counsel
Forrestal Building
Mail Station GC-72
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-0103
(202) 586-2946
thomas.depriest@hq.doe.gov

Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Executive Secretary, ISCAP
C/O Information Security Oversight Office
The National Archives Building
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500
Washington, D.C. 20408
Telephone: (202) 357-5250
FAX: (202) 357-5907
E-Mail: iscap@nara.gov

ISOO ISCAP Team Members:
William J. Bosanko
ISCAP Team leader
Telephone: 202-357-5205;
Email: william.bosanko@nara.gov

Lee Morrison
Telephone: 202-357-5039;
Email: lee.morrison@nara.gov

Kristofer L. Johnson
Telephone: 202-357-5035;
Email: kristopher.johnson@nara.gov

Robert L. Tringali
Telephone: 202-357-5335;
Email: robert.tringali@nara.gov



Mandatory declassification review jackpot!

Section 1.8 of Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National Security Information" ( PDF Format) provides for classification challenges by an authorized holder who believes that the classification status of certain information is improper. These challenges must be presented in writing but do not need to be more specific than questioning why information is or is not classified at a certain level. The Order provides this provision to encourage authorized holders to challenge classification levels in order to promote proper and thoughtful classification actions. Section 2001.13(c)(2) of the Implementing Directive states that "the classification challenge provision is not intended to prevent an authorized holder from informally questioning the classification status of particular information. Such informal inquiries should be encouraged as a means of holding down the number of formal challenges." Agencies are required to ensure that no retribution is taken against a challenger.
Appeals should be sent to the ISCAP at:
Executive Secretary,
ISCAP C/O Information Security Oversight Office
The National Archives Building
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500
Washington, D.C. 20408
Telephone: (202) 219-5250
FAX: (202) 219-5385
E-Mail: iscap@nara.gov



Iscap email sent.


Notice missing paragraph from 14 March letter.
Agencies must consider classification challenges separately from FOIA requests (information on FOIA can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/04_1.html) and can not process challenges with pending access requests.

Agencies must provide an initial written response to a challenge within 60 days. Agencies unable to respond in 60 days must acknowledge the challenge in writing and provide a date by which the agency will respond. This statement must indicate that if the agency does not respond within 120 days or if the challenge is denied, the challenger has the right to present the challenge to the ISCAP. A challenge may also be presented to ISCAP if no response is received within 90 days.

You stated in your appeal letter that you believed the subject documents were improperly classified and requested a classification review. It appears you are blending the FOIA appeal process with the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) process (EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5). EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5 is the proper avenue for classification challenges. Agency policy states, if a requestor submits a request under both, the FOIA and the MDR, the Agency shall require the requestor to elect one process or the other. The request shall be treated as a FOIA unless the requested materials are subject to the MDR only. Additional information regarding the MDR process can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/isso/oversightgrouss/iscap/mdr-appeals.html. If you wish to request a classification challenge under the MDR process, please submit a separate request in writing to this Agency. Your MDR request will be processed accordingly.

Let's give serious careful slow thought to the possibility of suing NSA on the FOIA appeal rejection in the District of Columbia circuit ... and bring up related issues under pendant rules.

We have.

NSA gets sued in the District of Columbia ... if we don't promptly settle, of course.

§ 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings ...

(B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency’s determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B).

(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown.

[(D) Repealed. Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(2), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3357.]

(E) The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.

(F) Whenever the court orders the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant and assesses against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, and the court additionally issues a written finding that the circumstances surrounding the withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, the Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding. The Special Counsel, after investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, shall submit his findings and recommendations to the administrative authority of the agency concerned and shall send copies of the findings and recommendations to the officer or employee or his representative. The administrative authority shall take the corrective action that the Special Counsel recommends.

(G) In the event of noncompliance with the order of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible employee, and in the case of a uniformed service, the responsible member.







Additional information regarding the MDR process can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/isso/oversightgrouss/iscap/mdr-appeals.html.

File Not Found

Our web site was redesigned, and many items have moved during the transition. But we have some ways of helping you locate the information you're looking for:

NSA has a reputation with the military of screwing-up.

Let's hope some are getting the idea to settle before matters get far far worse!

No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA.



Don't search for deeper explanations when stupidity will suffice

Physics professor Melvin Gordon Davidson

Stupidity is difficult to underestimate

Late economics professor Robert Franklin Wallace




NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000

Case No. 8687C/Appeal No. 3050

14 March 2006

Mr. William Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Mr. Payne:

This replies to your letter dated 22 November 2005, appealing the National Security Agency's (NSA) refusal to release responsive documents in their entirety pursuant to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Your initial request, the documents located, the Office of Policy's response to you dated 23 September 2005, and your letter of appeal have been reviewed. As a result of this review, I have determined that the withheld information was appropriately withheld pursuant to the exemptions cited below.

The withheld information meets the standards for classification set forth in subparagraph (a) of Section 1.1 of Executive Order (EO) 12958, as amended. In addition, the information meets the specific criteria for classification established in Section 1.4(c) and (g). The information remains currently and properly classified SECRET and TOP SECRET in accordance with the criteria established in Section 1.2 of EO 12958, as amended. The documents are classified because their exposure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave and serious damage, respectively, to national security. Accordingly, the documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

The same information is also protected against disclosure by 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3) which provides that the FOJA does not apply to matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute. The applicable statutory provisions with regard to the information at issue are: 18 U.S.C. § 798, which prohibits the disclosure of classified communications intelligence information to unauthorized persons; 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1) which requires intelligence agencies such as the NSA to protect intelligence sources and methods; and Section 6 of the NSA Act of 1959 (50 U.S.C. § 402 note), which authorizes the Agency to withhold information pertaining to the NSA's activities, organization, or the identities of its personnel notwithstanding the provisions of any other law. The remaining information that the Agency withheld is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) which protects inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. The two privileges that have been incorporated into exemption 5, which apply here, are the attorney/client and the attorney-work product privileges. The attorney/client privilege protects communications between attorneys, which reflect client-supplied information. The attorney-work product privilege protects memoranda and other documents prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation. It is well settled that the termination of litigation does not invalidate the protection for material otherwise properly categorized as attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged.

You stated in your appeal letter that you believed the subject documents were improperly classified and requested a classification review. It appears you are blending the FOIA appeal process with the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) process (EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5). EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5 is the proper avenue for classification challenges. Agency policy states, if a requestor submits a request under both, the FOIA and the MDR, the Agency shall require the requestor to elect one process or the other. The request shall be treated as a FOIA unless the requested materials are subject to the MDR only. Additional information regarding the MDR process can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/isso/oversightgrouss/iscap/mdr-appeals.html. If you wish to request a classification challenge under the MDR process, please submit a separate request in writing to this Agency. Your MDR request will be processed accordingly.

Since your appeal has been denied, you are hereby advised of your right to seek judicial review of my determination pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) in the United States District Court in the district which you reside, in which you have your principal place of business, in which the Agency's records are situated (U.S. District Court of Maryland), or in the District of Columbia.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM B. BLACK, JR.
Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act
Appeals Authority