DRAFT MEMORANDUM ENTITLED CIA SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83B00823R000800050084-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 4, 2000
• Sequence Number: 84
• Publication Date: May 16, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For ReYe 20,
*OGC Has Reviewed*
00823000050084-3
Ii
OGC 75-1937
16 May 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting General Counsel
Draft Memorandum Entitled CIA Surveillance
Activities Within the United States
REFERENCE: Memo for Gen. Counsel, fm IG, dtd 15 May 75, same
subj. '
1. In the referent memorandum the Inspector General expresses
reservations on the proposed paper to the DCI entitled CIA Surveillance
Activities Within the United States (hereinafter referred to as the DRAFT).
This memorandum addresses the IG's comments.
2. The IG objects to use of the word "consensual" in the definition of
consensual monitoring at para. 2b of the DRAFT. In his opinion the word
"consensual" implies agreement of all the parties to a conversation.
a. As defined in the DRAFT, "consensual monitoring,"
requires the consent of only one of the parties. If all parties
had to agree to the monitoring, there would not be a surveillance.
b. The word "consensual"' (or consensus fog: that matter)
does not mean total agreement or agreement by all. In the case of
consensual monitoring the agreement is between one of the parties
to the conversation and the person doing the monitoring.
c. The overhearing or recording of an oral or wire communi-
cation by, or with the consent of, one of the parties thereto is
specifically recognized and not prohibited by 18 U.S.C. ? 2511(2) (c)
and (d) .
d. The IG's proposal to substitute "electronic monitoring"
for consensual monitoring would eliminate "eavesdropping" or
overhearing by other. than electronic devices.
25X1
p` ;DEN 1 1. L
00
52869
Approved For Release 2003/06/19 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000800050084-3
 . CON F IEAg?. L
Approved For Rele 2003/06/19 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000050084-3
3.' The IG believes that subparagraphs 2c(l) and (2) of the DRAFT
z 7?+,rl + nF +l,n n~rnrinrr n iT l Jrs~nh ~C This is not so.
a. Paragraph 2c defines electronic surveillance and. cites
the legal authorities which permit it.
b. Subparagraph 2c(l) states that electronic surveillance
not conducted pursuant to the authorities of paragraph 2c is a crime.
c. Subparagraph 2c(2) outlines how warrantless electronic
surveillance may be approved and states that any requests by CIA
to the FBI for such surveillance require the approval of the DCI.
d. The discussion in 2c(l) and (2) was included in their
present detail at the request of the IG's representative on the working
group that drafted the paper.
4. The IG's comment in paragraph Ic of the referent memo is not clear.
It objects to para. 3 of the DRAFT "because of its attempt to be all inclusive
[sic] and detail things in a manner that is lacking in clarity...." Paragraph
3 sets forth justification under the Agency's charter for use of physical
surveillance and consensual monitoring. The working group, with the full
participation of the IG representative, deliberately attempted to list all
possible justifications. However, this must be done in general terms of what
is recognized (or argued) to be permissible under the charter. It was not
intended to list every specific factual situation in which surveillance would
be justified.
5. The IG suggests that a limitation of 24 hours on surveillance
necessary to establish the identity of individuals discovered during an
authorized surveillance is arbitrary. It Is that, but without it, what guidance
is there on the point? Can surveillance to establish identity continue for an
indefinite period? The limitation provides an answer. It does not require
surveillance for 24 hours but rather establishes a maximum period for sur-
veillance when an individual's identity is not sooner determined. Without
some limitation there is room for misinterpretation or abuse. If there is
disagreement over the length of time which should be allowed, that is a
different question.
Approved For Release 2003/06/19 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000800050084-3
 Approved For Rel a 200 WI1 I l 823RD 00050084-3
6. The IG feels that para. 4d, which provides for oral approval of the
v1 ALA V :..J t. ~y, i,? ?
.tJ -It I -r,r '7?:,hl fl,? 1171 r?'n?-,} (`iv. (`711'v1C~~1n ('f-c; 'flt'n(:7t7~n
written request, is inappropriate and restrictive. Perhaps another official
should be designated to grant this type of request when the DCI cannot be
reached. However, total elimination of prior approval by some official
detached from the requesting officer's potential bias in favor of surveillance
would seem to completely disregard the concept of centralized control of this
activity and lead to abuse through colored, after-the-fact judgments. In
addition, elimination of the requirement: for oral approval by someone in these
cases is uncosmetic.
25X1A
Assistant General Counsel
cc: IG
~/D/OS
Fr- i D IL N, A% L
Approved For Release 2003/06/19 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000800050084-3