The National Security
Eric M O'Shea
Office of Associate General Counsel
Information Policy Office
WILLIAM B. BLACK, JR.
Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act
First posted on this page
Wednesday March 29, 2006 07:38
Monday October 8, 2007 17:54
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
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.
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.
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.
No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000
Case No. 8687C/Appeal No. 3050
Mr. William Payne
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.
WILLIAM B. BLACK, JR.