'BUFFER ZONE' COMMITTEE MEETING (U)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00890R000200030068-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 17, 2005
• Sequence Number: 68
• Publication Date: September 23, 1981
• Content Type: MFR

25X1 Approved For Release 2005/12/23 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000200030068-1
Approved For Release 2005/12/23 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000200030068-1
 Approved For Release"' ip;~'TI4-RDP84B00890R000200030068-1
23 September 1981
SUBJECT: "Buffer Zone" Committee Meeting (U)
1. A meeting of the "Buffer Zone" Committee was held on 18 September
1981 at 0930 hours in Room 7D-32, Headquarters. Attendees were:
William N. Hart, ADDA Chairman
PSD
/RECD
C/CSD
OS/TSD
/MS (C)
2. Mr. Hart commenced with the purpose of the meeting. Briefly, the
attendees were to explore the feasibility of establishing an Agency TEMPEST
regulation, perhaps to include a "buffer zone" to protect electrical emanations
from all new Agency-leased buildings. Mr. Hart also emphasized the need for a
prompt decision. The Agency must commit now to lease 105,000 square feet for
occupancy in 12 to 14 months. (U)
3. outlined the results of his search for potential leased
space. To date, he has found five potential spaces which meet the required
delivery date, location, and size. Only one of these buildings has room for a
"buffer zone" and, in fact, has several other potential problems. (C)
4. A general discussion then developed on the relationship of the levels
of sensitivity of the information to be protected to levels of protection re-
quired. A dichotomy quickly developed between the ideal of TEMPEST-controlled
equipment in physically secured areas and the reality of obtaining commercially
leased space that would meet the physical security constraints and do so within
our required time frames. (U)
5. There were divergent opinions as to what levels of security should be
written into regulations. The hard-liners who would like to see a 10-meter
"buffer zone" enforced by guarded areas were quick to admit that it might not
be possible to obtain on the locally available market. The committee then
discussed what would be an acceptable level of compromise between the ideal and
the practical. (U)
25X1
WARNING NOTICE
INTELLIGENCE SO,.F(GES
AHD METHODS INVOLVED
pproved_ or Release
" Alf
TI*LRDP84B0
 Approved For Release 2005~.~Q;3':lguQ B00890R000200030068-1
6. The result was a general agreement (with one exception) that the
"buffer zone," while the prime defense against compromise of electrical
emanations, is, in fact, extremely variable in efficiency. Depending on the
time, access, and sophistication of the attack, the effectiveness of the
"buffer zone" requires various distances and, in fact, 10 meters is an
arbitrary selection. (U)
7. Mr. Hart summed up the meeting with the following:
a. The "buffer zone" is a goal we should try to obtain on all
new leases. The OL/RECD should be instructed to include a require-
ment for a "buffer zone" of approximately 10 meters on all future
leases. However, this requirement should be a goal and should not
be the ultimate determining factor in leases, but rather be treated
on a case-by-case basis. The requirement will not be written into
Agency regulations.
b. The regulation on TEMPEST-approved equipment should be
beefed up and more strictly enforced. Exceptions to TEMPEST
requirements in commercially leased buildings should be more
stringently justified than they are now.
c. I OSO/TCD, was in disagreement and felt that the
"buffer zone" should be written into Agency regulations and enforced. (U)
25X1
Planning Officer, DDA/MS
Distribution:
0 - DDA Subject
1 - MS Subject
1 - MS Chrono
DDA/MS ba(23Sep8l)
Approved For Release 2005/IONF RALB0089OR000200030068-1
 .:.DD NOT use this ~ form as. a RECORD- of approvals, concurrences.. disposals,
clearances, and similar actions