[10513] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
US Nat'l Security Council not Subject to FOIA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PACS-L Moderator)
Mon Aug 12 20:16:43 1996
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:48:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: PACS-L Moderator <libpacs@UH.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>From: jwarren@well.com (Jim Warren)
>Subject: US Nat'l Security Council not Subject to FOIA
>
>Please note that fed security agencies spend -- and "loose" (e.g., CIA's
>inability to account for billons of dollars in an audit, earlier this year)
>-- huge amounts of tax-dollars ... with obviously inadequate.
>
>And them damned-well aren't gonna allow any tax-payer or media oversight,
>either! I mean, gee, who do ya think they work for, anyway? Certainly not
>the money-emitting peasants.
>
>--snarling-jim
>
>
>From: sobel@epic.org (David L. Sobel)
>Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
>
>In a major blow to the principle of government accountability, the
>federal appeals court in Washington, DC, has ruled that the
>National Security Council (NSC) is not subject to the disclosure
>requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
>
>The August 2 split decision in _Armstrong v. Executive Office of
>the President_ was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who was
>joined by Judge Harry Edwards. A dissenting opinion was written
>by Judge David Tatel. The Armstrong case involved the status of
>archived White House e-mail dating back to the Reagan
>administration. While successive administrations have fought to
>preserve the confidentiality of White House e-mail and computer
>systems, the Clinton administration was the first to contend that
>the NSC is not an "agency" subject to the FOIA and the Federal
>Records Act. The lower court (Judge Charles Richey) had rejected
>the administration's position, but the Court of Appeals for the
>District of Columbia Circuit reversed, concluding that "the close
>working relationship between the NSC and the President indicates
>that the NSC is more like 'the President's immmediate personal
>staff' than it is like an agency exercising authority independent
>of the President."
>
>The decision will have a significant impact on the ability of the
>public to oversee the development of policies that affect the
>Internet. The NSC, for instance, has been deeply involved in
>encryption policy and the controversial Clipper Chip initiative.
>An NSC-related entity, the Security Policy Board, is currently
>developing "information security" policies that will potentially
>have a substantial impact on the Internet and other electronic
>communications media. The Electronic Privacy Information Center
>(EPIC) is currently litigating FOIA cases against the NSC seeking
>the disclosure of information concerning these activities. The
>future of those cases is now in doubt.
>
>The text of the D.C. Circuit decision in _Armstrong_ is available
>at:
>
> http://epic.org/open_gov/nsc_decision.html
>
>Information on EPIC's FOIA litigation is available at:
>
> http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/#FOIA
>
>
>==========================
>
>David L. Sobel
>EPIC Legal Counsel
>
>
>
