RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TASK TEAM V REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01139A000300040011-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 8, 2002
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: June 30, 1966
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2002/0p/pgrIp1A-RDP80B01139W0300040011-5
%we , ni:
30 June 1966
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman, CODIB
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Task Team V Report
It is recommended that:
1. A CODIB working group be established and tasked to
design and support the implementation of a program to upgrade
the present interagency National Agency Check (NAC) system
network. Representatives from DoD, Department of State, FBI,
CIA, and NSA should be included and representatives from the
Civil Service Commission, Immigration and Naturalization Ser-
vice, and Secret Service (non-USIB but highly involved
agencies) should be invited to participate. The tasks should
include:
a.' Establishment of common data elements as
required by the participants in the NAC system.
b. Establishment of a common format acceptable to
all users of the NAC system which will contain both
human and machine readable information.
c. Monitor and evaluate an experimental link
between two or more agencies to test the possible areas
of improvement and determine guidelines for the
implementation of the full systems.
2. A CODIB working group be established to identify
specific possible areas of improvement ?in the positive
biographic area. Representatives from DIA, NSA, Department of
State, CIA, and CODIB/SS should be included. A biographic
intelligence processing plan should be developed by this
group. It should coordinate carefully with the developing
COINS effort and the new CODIB Subcommittee on Standardization.
The present Positive Intelligence biographic system in each
agency should be described. Specific recommendations for
__Ter .ram
Approved For Release 2002/05.r.iWA-RDP80B01139A000300040011-5
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 ..,R14k-RDP80601139W0300040011-5
.;SietUtiti
- 2 -
improvements in the existing systems should be made in such
areas as standard data elements, standard request formats,
improved communication facilities, exploitation of source
materials and maintenance of data bases as Intelligence
Community resources.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
25X1A
Approved For Relea
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
Nor
MEMORANDUM TO: 17 June 1966
1-7-7;;;;;;1CODIB
SUBJECT: Personal Recommendations with respect to Task Team Ills Work.
1. The following are recommendations regarding the future course
of the military personalities aspect of biographies that I promised
I would submit to you before taking off for C & GS School :
a. Establish a committee of substantively qualified people in
the respective agencies to come up with standard data finds, transcription
systems standard ranks, position lists, etc. for the purpose of automating
as much of this information as possible. COINS may do some useful work here.
b. Rewrite the pertinent DCIDts so that responsibilities for
the acquisition, processing, and production of military personality intelligence
is clearly and unequivocally fixed. In my opinion, the exploitation of open-
source materials for military personalities should be assigend to DOD(DIA).
c. Direct that all interested agencies in the Washington area be
tied into the LDX system by a given date, to include the exchange of biographic
information. AHS is still not tied in.
d. Stop the proliferation of raw intelligence reports throughout
the community and direct interested agencies to he specified agency responsible
for producing military personality and military biographic intelligence.
2. In my opinion, the PI side of Task Team V did all it could in the time
allotted to learn what files existed of value to them, what was in them, and whom
to call to get something in a hurry. Work should now continue with attempts at
standardization and more precise definitions of responsibility. Please forgive
the brevity. I can give fuller explanations on my return early in July.
25X1A
se 2002/05/09 CIA-RDP801301139A000300040011-5
Approve
r Release 20 : CIA-RDP80B04?39A000300040011 -5
2* April 1966
34-66/217
MEMORANDUMPI Chairman, 1_,ODIB
BULINT : CODIB 3epport Ztaff Comments on
lilt Tema 'V' Report
April 1966
1. Soak you for seedeee se 'efeewvj. I feel that t
4itribtitii of this.documeat eaa oal.y result in
Ner in this to be a leagthy rebuttal. I would like to ammea
soda of the Wale Iseues in order to elarify the Tank Masts outlook,
sad to tender some personal obeervatious regarding task Team efforts
in general.
2. I am confident that t abera of Task Team V woeld agree
that our report is fairly good in its feat finding and laergeetions,
pretty weak in terme of actioa propoeals. I smswally were that
the tesm woad agree that the C55 eomments are belated, Laseasitive
to inter-sepeoy realities, misleading and inaccurate in several re-
spects, end largely devoid of aegmlistioa for the art ef the possible.
The tem dwelt et great leagth on may of the issues raised in the
attachmaat to reference. The teem z:ellectively decided, for &mix 4'
technieal, procedural, cavironmental and policy reaeoue, that the beat
it could do 'with the time and maapower available ems to report as it
did.
3. The basic dirt culty, freekiy, Igoe a lack of prObl defl-
ai ion on CXB part. The team foend itself ehareed, vith the rem.
ceirement to idetUy the biographic problem and make recommendetloes.
It took the tem (composed of people with diverse Laterests and
rod several several soetkis to eome ep with Saris of seefereaze ehich it
felt to be responsive to OODIR'e Tee= directione. It took meveral
mere maths, after the TMrms of Referee 'were approvui by ODIN, Lr
the Tema to realise that evea theoe terma were beyond its eacity in
dicta's respeet*. It vas erystal clear, ea thing* developed, that a
commealty "'biographic plan" was a meanineless phrase.
auhmaih:
Approved For Release 2002/0 1.cAILaDP$081:1113 A000300040011-5
Approved-F-dr Release 20020RDIA-RDP801304439A000300040011-5
-2-
h. As teal' thivaking coaiaaced, it been.* clear to all. that
it IIMA beyond the powers or tuCh a tea team to analyse the pro-
blems or- each away in detail. Cousequeatly, the teem unan1mous4
en4ersed the followlag vordieg (page 12 para. 9, pada IL, para. 5):
It ems not possible for the %onto consider speeifieally
the relative merits of: (a) the improvement of the manual
sprteRs 'within each agency, (b) the poteatisls in auto
Mahlea at the index system within each seency, sae (c) the
antes efficiency that might be realized by the institution
CC a smehine lanepage zummenioation system between the various
sonnies. These are tasks requiriug managemeat supported
ressibility studio-a, dominated by the professionals within
each agency, in terms of the wive history sod problems of
sighs
5. let let's se to the heart of the matter. I wonder to what
extent COMB, a eommittee ehieb reports to another committe, an
determine in the first gage, and enterce in the second place, rules
and standards vbich have to be applied end interpreted deep within
Line organizations ehich pay oaly token attention to iatar-agency
committee pronounoements. Can an inter-agency study group ever
penetrate even u single organizstioats workings to the point that
it understated* the nature or the data, the mdssien and functioes,
the dollar and personnel reaources, the informal organizatioaal
structure and other ingredieete ehich have to be grasped before
practical suggestions for change cliA be model I find an almoet
unasimoes negative to this qeestion in talking to professional
intelligence officers and meneeeea throughout the commaelty,
in-
clueing eeveral of the persons who now serve, or have served, as
COMB menhers.
6. Reference paper indiestes little awareness of the fact
that this teak team represeata, in microcosm, the real eerld of
r-departmental dynamics. There are problems and differences
in each azesay Which virtually force the individual on a task tema
to follow the dietate* of his own orgenisation, giving either lip
service to, or sideway* endoraemeat of, atatements of ,...olemaulty
principle or techniqpes 'ditch may serve his cause.
7. This is neither good nor bad: it is. I feel personally
that the better the communication between professionals with
wanageereetioperational (as opposed to otaff) reeponsibilities,
the better our chances or having lees lip service and more side-
man (or even direct) endorsement or, and follow through on entails
4 I
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80B01139A000300040011-5
Approved tbr Release 2002SUREI1A-RDP80604139A000300040011-5
Al matters steM, the ery
and solve
unrealistically
oraes, committees, study rou, eta.,
n, data ehariag, community ompatibilite
more we deplete our already over extended manpower
resources throAdhout the ,Jommunity.
What, then? At worst, It thould be possible to oraiize
Per1441c embeadel of user groups, managers end technicians in
various subject areas. At best, an inter-departmental start group
such as the CS3 mdght be able to identity discreet problem areas
ehieh involve such eglariag diffusion of reeponsibility, or du-
plicatio4 of processing, that .orete changes in mission and work
can be documented awl implemented. Just ergenisiag the community
tO do these appareatly simple things will take all the attention,
time and staff available.
cc,
Chief, tifir Systems Orono
SE
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
25X1A
SECRET
Approved Flar Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601439A000300040011-5
CSS/MM-76
7 April 1966
UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE BOARD
COMMITTEE ON DOCUMENTATION
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman, CODIB
SUBJECT: Task Team V - B.iographics, Final Report
REFERENCES:
(a) USIB/D-39.7/5 16 March 1964
(b) USID-D-39.7/6 6 May 1964
CODIB-D-IIIII.5/3 19 January 1965
T/V/W-1 16 October 1965
I. In reference (a) CODIB recommended that USIB approve
the establiahminat of an ad hoc task team to "develop a
biograPhic intelligence processing plan." In reference (b)
USIB approved this COMB recommendation. Thus, in 1964, it was
obviously the feeling of both CODIB and USID that there was a
nal for a biographic intelligence processing plan. Task
Team V was established to accomplish this task.
2. The Task Team apparently understood its assignment,
at least in the beginning, because reference (d), an early
version of its Terms of Reference, gave the following as its
Objective: "To develop a plan to facilitate the processing and
production of biographic intelligence information within the
Intelligence Community." Later, with the approval of COMB, the
Task Team changed its objective, as given in reference (c), to
the following: "To identify means for improving the storage,
retrieval and exchange of information from the major name files
and related data files in the Intelligence Community." However,
the Team was reminded by CODIB Support Staff representatives
several times during its deliberations of its Original purpose
as approved by USIB.
3. The Final Report of Task Team V does not fulfill the
task for which it was created as stated in reference (a). In
our opinion it fails far short of achieving the objective as
stated in reference (c), the approved terms of reference for
the Task Team.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
f*
"t_..CRET
RCM
Approved Fjp,r Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
4. Our detailed c mments specifying the reasons for arriving
the above conclusion are given in the attachment to this
morandum.
5. We recommend the following course of action:
*. COMB should not forward this report to USID.
To send it to USID as CODID's response to the original
requirement would, in our judgement, reflect very
adversely on CODID.
b. COMB should now make up its mind whether in 1966
ants a biographic intelligence processing plan, as it
rently did in 1964. If it does not, then it should
some method of getting off the USID hook for such a
. We do not believe that sending this report forward
out considerable modification will even do that. If
COOLS does want such a plan, then some method must be
found to provide the necessary resources to achieve it.
0. Assuming that CODID does went to develop a
biographic intell gence processing plan, we recommend the
following:
(1) Establish a task group to develop a processing
plan for the positive intelligence biographic activities
with members assigned full time to the project until
the report to COOLS is completed. (We recommend this
course because the Positive and the Cl/Security
biggraphic systems are indeed separate systems with
different requirements, data bases and organizational
channels). The first tatic of this group would be to
describe adequately the present positive intelligence
biographic systems in each agency. This would then be
used as the basis for making recommendations for
improvement.
(2) Establish a separate task group to:
(a) Plan for the immediate implementation
of a telecommunication network for transmission
of requests and responses in machine language
between agencies in the National Agency Check
system.
(b) Concurrently with the Above, develop
standard rules for recording of personal names
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP801301139A000300040011-5
??
Rrepc
Approved For Release 2002/0-MetbrA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
and other identifying data to be used in
inter-agency queries and responses,
(c) Describe adequately the present
Cl/Security systems in each agency.
(d) Develop recommendations for improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of the NAC
system.
(e) Operate full time until the above
tasks are completed.
(3) In order to coordinate the efforts of these
two task groups and to preclude domination of either
group by any one agency, we recommend that the Chief
of both task groups be a member of the CODIB Support
Staff.
25X1A
Chief, CODIB Support Staff
Attachment: A/S
Distribution:
Orig & 1 - Addressee
A:1.- Secretary, CODIB
1 - Chrono
1 - CSS
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
rq:Cy'77
2002/05/09
9A000300040011-5
CODIB SUPPORT STAFF COMMENTS ON
FINAL REPORT OF TASK TEAM V - BIOGRAPHICS
CSS/MM-76
, 7 April 1966
.Attachment
1. Perhaps the major deficiency in the Final Report of Task Team V
is that it does not present a sufficiently comprehensive picture of indi-
:vidual biographic intelligence processing organizations. Thus it is
_neither a useful tool for users/researchers of biographic information nor
does it provide an adequate basis for sound recommendations for improving
Eisystems; In fact, some of the recommendations (i.e., 3, 7, & 8) are
-presented without any discussion from which such recommendations could arise.
'Recommendations 5 ahd 6. would give to the CODIB Support Staff the task of
finishing the work for Task Team V, i.e., completing the description of
--the present systems in sufficient detail to be useful as a research tool or
:in making recommendations for improvements.
/lapin 1540,f, /1;2--fi AZ
--
2; Other-deficiencies discussed below are referenced to specific
paragraphs of Task Team V Approved Terms of Reference (CODIB-D-111/1.5/3,
19 January 1965).
?
a. (Para B. l)**: The files of Project White Stork (FTD), Cross
-Check (FTD/LOC)? and Passport and Visa (State) are "significant indexes"
and are "routinely consulted" but no information is contained on them in the
.report. Also the team's definition of What constitutes a significant index
:actually eliminates a number of biographic files which are important to
the Community.
b. (Para B. 2. a) Figures on size (and activity rates) are given
-by organization rather than by individual index or biographic file' within
each organization. In many cases there may be only one index, but in
several instances there are actually a number of different indexes, e.g.,
CIA/SR, CIA/BR, NSA/OCR. There is no way of telling this from the figures
.given.
*T/V/R-1, 1 February 1966
**See Annex 6 of the Report for copy of Terms of Reference.
1
GIICIIP 1
11711 4 t
? ExCurled trim 49irnithti?
1
oak!. t
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A0003 00 tro111-5
IM1115r.P:111'.1 1111-11m],irPtilmtrit r.vel
!rod.Lix
,
Approved4Releas,e2002/0R9pir-IRDP80604143' 9A000300040011-5
LOU . 1
- 2 -
c. (Para B. 2. b) The only information contained in the report
An response to this paragraph is a column in Annex 3 which indicates whether
the individuals whose names" are in the indexes are "predominately US, foreign
or both." There is no other information on the "types of personalities
covered: percentage of foreign vs. U.S. citizens, scientists, military,
.political, communist party, maritime, foreign intelligence services, agents,
etc." There is no mention of what nationalities are represented in any
,index.
d. (Para B. 2, c) There is no information on the "depth of search
.on name variants" in any of the indexes. The only information on depth
?of search is the average number of searches per request, as shown in Annex
3, Cole 8. One cannot tell Whether this indicates search on name variants,
name variations or both.
.e. (Para B. 2. d) There is no information presented on the "major
,requesters (against each index) or the proportion of requests from each."
f. (Para B. 2. e) There is practically no discussion of the
"methods of communicating requests and responses" other than a statement
(p 11 para 5) that "there are literally dozens of name check request forms
now being utilized by the various agencies," and that "certain basic data
such as name, place of birth, date of birth, service serial number, social
security number, sex, etc., were included on each form." The Team "considered
a study of the need for a single name check form to be used by the variOus
agencies," but then considered it "more important to examine the data
elements used and what rules should be applied to their control." The Team
.did nothing further about either of these problems except to propose an
approach to recording of personal names. From the absence of discussion on
communication of requests by electrical/electronic methods and from Recommen-
dation 2 (page 4), one could assume that telecommunication facilities are not
now being utilized. However, the Army counterintelligence and security
records facility at Ft. Holabird has been receiving requests and transmitting
responses in machine language over telecommunication links for several years.
Air Force and Navy counterintelligence and security records are now being
merged with the Army records in one facility to 'serve alld'DoD via 1--
telecommunication links.
g. (Para B. 2. f) Annex 4 contains a. listing of the. data elements
that may be recorded by each agency. However, the report contains no infor-
mation regarding the rules applied to the recording of data elements in any
agency or even whether there are any rules.
h. (Para B. 2. g) There are no "descriptions of input, maintenance
and search processing" as practiced by each system or agency.
i. (Para B. 2. h) There is no discussion of "requirements for
submission of requests" to any index,
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
? lloql,T?torrr,:r.?1Tvrivrnile?rvlit7F:01:17,134-,.c..,,,,,.,..??..,
- ,
417
Approved fir
elease 2002/0t1 AR
09r1,41ADP8OBIOU;r9A000300040011-5
u, h
- 3 -
j. (Para C. 1) The report does not "examine costs, methodology
or prospects for biographic systems now undergoing mechanization." Nor
does it examine these factors in sufficient detail to be helpful to an
agency which may be considering automation. It does mention (p 1 para 2)
that there are "profound, complex problems and significant costs," but it
does not examine these problems carefully nor even mention the costs.
k. (Para C. 2) The report states (p 2 para 9) that "the central
problem in any large name index used for name searching is the way in which
personal names are recorded, filed, and searched," and then presents, in
. Annex 2, a "Proposed Approach to the Machine Recording of Personal Names."
Beyond that, however, it does very little to "identify the basic problems
to be faced and areas where policy decisions are required by each agency
in planning for mechanization."
1. (Para C. 3) This is a very important paragraph in the Terms
of Reference, and the report pays very little attention to it except to
note (p 2 para 9) that "the success of an improved interagency name check
exchange system based on telecommunications coupled with computer search
requires a common approach to recording of personal names and certain
additional basic identifying data." It does not specify what the additional
data are nor make any attempt to arrive at a common approach to any data
elements other than name.
m. (Para D) The report does not "outline policy objectives for
the Community" (except perhaps for Recommendation 1, and that has already
been a USIB policy since August 1962 as stated in USIB-D-39.5/15). It
? does not give "generalized projections of cost, manpower and time required
? to meet these objectives," nor does it "include specific guidelines for
agencies to follow in systems planning and development."
3. In short, it appears to us that the Terms of Reference, which the
Team spent a great deal of time preparing, were practically ignored.
Below are comments on each of the Recommendations contained in the
report. (pp 4-5)
4-3f.3-46
a. Recommendation 1. The essentials of this reCommendation have
been USIB policy since 1962) not only for mechanization of biographic indexes
but other areas as wellv.-14hy ask USIB to approve now what it already approved
four years ago? Furthermore, many of the agencies which have biographic
responsibilities are now moving rapidly toward mechanization. A notable
exception is FBI, which is giving very serious thought to the problem but is
prevented from doing much because of budgetary considerations. It may be
true that "no major name index in the Intelligence Community has yet been
fully automated," and "therefore, proof of success has not been conclusively
demonstrated." (p 2 para 8) However, these statements are somewhat misleading.
There are several name indexes outside of the Intelligence Community which
have been fully automated and which are conclusively successful. One of
these, the National Drivers Registration Service (NDRS), Bureau of Public
Roads, Washington, D. C., with an index of about three million records,
5.1rcticT
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
ApproveceRelease2002/05/WchatyDP8060:39A000300040011-5
I
receives up to 100,000 request's per day and responds within 24 hours. Most
of the members of the Team visited the NDRS and were aware of its capabi-
lities. The point to be made here is that success in this field has been
achieved and we should press forward rather than adopt a go-slow or wait-
and-see attitude. The report could have pointed out that there are still
about eight million typed biographic index cards being created each year and
that to convert just these cards to machine language will cost the agencitLLEGIB
, approximately $800,000. Most of this annual cost could have been saved if
.the agencies had converted to machine-language recording procedures. The
longer they wait the greater will be the loss in conversion costs.
b. Recommendation 2. In our judgment Itiis-iiIneedleR55a exercise
' to "request each agency to study the feasibility of establishing telecommuuni
cation links within the National Agency Check Complex." TheAfeasibility of
. such links is already well established. The Army has been receiving requests
. on IBM cards from its field offices via transceiver for several years.
Transit time has been reduced from days to minutes. A network similar to
the Army system could be installed now between all agencies in the NAC
.system in a matter of days using existing telephone lines, for the vast
majority of the requests and responses. Pal-it?takes is a desire on the part
nf the agencies to do so? There is no need whatever to wait for a-feaaibi
24ty-study by each-agency or for any agency to complete, or even start, the
mechanization of its internal system before establishing telecommunication
links for transmission of requests and replies in machine language between
, agencies. It appears obvious from the report that something should be done
now to improve the response time which averages about nine days between any
. two agencies. The time required to obtain responses from all agencies .
which receive a typical request averages much greater than nine days, even
for those cases where all responses show that there is no derogatory infor-
mation on record (no-record responses). This response time could easily be
reduced to one day with the use of readily-available equipment and at no
. significant increase in cost over the present archaic system. (Rental of
eight terminals and the connecting lines should not exceed $3,000 per month.)
Furthermore, since the requests and responses would be tran8mitted in machine
language, there should be additional savings. The machine language cards
could be used by the requesting agency either in a machine index or a manual
index, and there would not be the the additional expense later of converting
to machine language when the system is mechanized. There would be no need
to type the requests on one of the dozens of request forms now being used.
One keypunching would provide both an index card and a request card. If the
receiving agency has a mechanized index, it would not have to convert taltk
typed requests to machine language before processing. The report states
(p 2 para 7) that "it is difficult to measure the actual loss to the govern-
ment...because of the slowness of the 5resenf system." It thus implies
that these losses are substantial. Therefore, it seems to us that we should
: recolluuend that the agencies press forward now with7== to implement a
system for transmission of requests and responses in machine language between
agencies, at least those in the NAC system. An effective system could have
been in operation years ago. In our judgment any further delay is Aet-enly-
unwarranteduneonacionable.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
?
Apprdved&Release 2002/V161: tritherRDP806041039A000300040011-5
cm!
ILLEGIB
- 5 -
c. Recommendation 3. We agree wholeheartedly with the idea that
the LDX (or similar) system should connect agencies in the Washington area
engaged in production or use of positive Biographic Intelligence. However,
there is no discussion in the report of what the LDX system is, where it
is now installed, what the costs are, what its advantages are, what improve-
ment could be obtained by its extension, what use rates could be expected,
etc. The report does state (p 16 para e) that "the present communications
between agencies is not adequate for quick exchange of classified informa-
tion," but this hardly seems sufficient background discussion for arriving
at RecoMmendation 3.
? d. Recommendation L. We feel strongly that the agencies should
agree now to a standard method of recording personal names and other
? identifying data elements before mechanized systems now under development
or contemplated in several agencies get locked in concrete so hard that it
.will be difficult at best and perhaps impossible to get them to change to a
standard method.- We further believe that the Intelligence Community should
lead other government agencies in this regard rather than have standards
developed under BoB sponsorship imposed upon us. If we had standards, it
might be possible to get them accepted by the rest of the government. Why
should we take such a laissez-faire attitude on these problems when the report
Itself says (fp 11 para 5) "those considerations Oata elements used and what
rules should be applied to their controgbecome increasingly critical as the
agencies move toward greater use of machine language." Now is the time to
act, not SOMQ. years hence when it will be too late or at least very expensive.
e. Recommendation 5. This recommendation would- require the CODIB
? Support Staff to describe the present biographic systems in each agency in
sufficient detail to serve as a useful tool for biographic analysts and other
? users of biographic intelligence. This, in our judgment, should have been
one of the first tasks to be accomplished by the Task Team which, in its
early days, had representatives from each of the major biographic collections
in Washington. Even at the conclusion of the Task Team's effort, few, if any,
members had acquired a detailed knowledge of the "characteristics of each
major collection and the procedures and channels for getting service from
each." How can we ever develop a biographic intelligence processiglan -
4until we have described, or at least have detailed knowledge of,iEhe charac-
teristics of each of the present systems? The Team report does not ,eafEec. tell
us how a single biographic data element is recorded in any one of the bio-
graphic collections. We have no argument about the necessity for a detailed
? description of present systems. The question is how to get it done now. We
do not believe that the Task Team approach is a good method. On the other
hand, the CODIB Support Staff does not have sufficient resources at present
to do the job in a reasonable time. We believe that if the job is to be
done at all, it should be done by persons detailed to the task full time
until it is completed. Maintenance of the publication, if desired, might then
be accomplished by the CODIB Support Staff.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09: CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
Approve Release 2002/
RDP806441139A000300040011-5
f. Recommendation 6. If the Task Team believes that it is
desirable for "agencies which are developing new computer data files" to be
informed of the "format and coverage requirements of others in the community,"
why did they not examine and report at least some of the formats and coveri-LLEGIB
age requirements while they had representatives together from the major
biographic collections in Washington who could have provided much of this
information? We believe strongly that all of the agencies should be con-
tinuously aware of what each of the other agencies is doing in the biographic
field. Format and coverage requirements are only two of the items about
which they should be informed on a continuing basis. 47ghis kind of information
should have been included in descriptions of ongoing systems and incorporated
.in the Team report. Right during the time the Team was deliberating, several
developments were started which will result eventually in computerized bio-
graphic data files, e.g., Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, DoD and COINS. Others were already underway, e.g., CIA/RID, CIA/OS,
CIA/CHIVE. These developments all appear to be going in their own
independent directions without the benefit of any help or guidance from each
other or from the Task Team V Final Report.
g. Recommendation 7. This may be an excellent recommendation,
hut how are we to judge since there is no discussion of it in the text. What
are the "needs of the Community?" What is DIA doing now? What use is DIA
making of open source material now? What are the deficiencies in the DIA
program? How should the program be expanded? We can already visualize
Gen. Carroll's reaction to this presumptious recommendation. It should be
backed up with solid evidence that such a recommendation is valid,and-Ttot
manufactured-out-of-thin-air.
h. Recommendation 8. This recommendation would give to another
'1 team, or its successor, the task of developing a portion of a biographic
intelligence processing plan but does not give it sufficient specifics to
enable it to know what is needed. The text states hp 16 para f) that "there
is an extensive but insufficiently coordinated effort to bring under control
scientific information from open sources" which "results in the creation of
a great deal of personality information on scientists at all levels of
significance." Other than the statement that this effort is "insufficiently
coordinated," there is no discussion of what is being done now, what is
wrong with the present system, or what additional is needed. One gets the
impression from this statement that lack of coordination may result in a
lot of duplicate information. This may be true, but just the opposite may
also be true. Who ean-tell froff-the report. Neither Task Team III nor its
successor should be given this vaguely-defined task until there is a better
analysis of what is needed by whom. Even-then, assigning it to another --'
'Task Team is not -the most desirable of several alternatives.
i. Recommendation 9. We believe that there is mudh need for -
persons engaged in a common cause to get together periodically to find out
what others are doing. One of the most significant ?achievements of Task
Approved For Release 2002/05/09.: CIA-RDP80B01139A000300040011-5
Approve
'Release 2002/Ornr-VDP806041139A000300040011-5
2 5X1 B
- 7 -
Team V was that the members got to know each other and something of what
was going on in the other agencies. A seminar similar to the one recommended
here was a major contributor to this achievement. However, we believe that
this mechanism should be. an adjunct to, rather than a substitute for, a .
comprehensive description of the biographic community and a biographic
-intelligence processing plan.
As indicated by the footnote on page 2 of the report, much of the
reported data is no longer valid. Reference to Annex 3, Biographic Index
.Facts Summary, indicates that some data in Cols. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14,
16 and probably others should now be changed. Before this report could
reach USIB, more of the data Will be invalid. Among other changes, the Army,
Navy and Air Force index records are being converted to a standard format
on IBM cards and merged. This project, which has been underway since
mid-1965, will be finished very shortly if not already. The?report?ae-rtai-nly
should now reflect -thit-development. CIA/RID and CIA/OS, which together
were converting to machine records even
before the Task learn got unaerway. State Department Passport and Visa Records,
the third largest in the government and which the Team ignored completely,
are being automated and will have on-line query capability from field offices.
This project has been underway for many months. Secret Service and I&NS
both began planning to mechanize several months ago. The report should
indicate the status of each of these mechanization efforts.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80601139A000300040011-5
crt