TO 

REF ID:A39972 

4 ( 

• INTEROFFICE ROUTING • ~ND I OR CARRIER SHEET HQ ASA 

MUST REMAIN WITH ATTACHED PAPERS 

NUMBER EACH MEMO OR REPLY IN LEFT BORDER PLACE NAME RANK AND 

TELEPHONE NUMBER BOTTOM OF EACH ACTION DRAW LINE UNDER EACH ACTION 

( 1Jl..1 I 

ENTER FILE CLASSIFICATION ADJUTANT ------

FROM DATE SUBJECT 

S-20 AS-14 ---=--t--'----------_:...._-=o 28 Apr 7 Bill s.1019 ____________ ~I 

1. The rincipa. obJections that have been raised against s.1019 and it predec ssor, s~805, are founded upon fears that the 

enactm nt of uch leg slation would be tantamount to the establishent o a pea e-time ensorship and might well constitute a serious 

blow d-rected against freedom of speech and press. The text of the 

bill s inten ea to be directed specifically against the 

disclo ure of cryptol gic information, but it goes far beyond this 

by m.ak n.g it crime o publish or divulge 11any message document, 

riti , note paper r the contents or meaning thereof~ which has 

t any time b en tran mitted in code, without getting specific, ffici 1 perm ssion. Since a grea~ deal of government business is 

ransl ted by message in code or cipher, the bill would appear toractia lly all but the most routine State, 'Far or Navy 

ent bu iness. Hence, lt is argued, a bill such as S.1019 - if ena ted int law, make it p9ssible for officials to use 

self-p otectio or to further doubtful political ends. The 

onclu ion on reache is almost inescapable, viz., that the wording 

f S.l 19 is till to broad--in fact, so broad as to preclude any 

ossib lity o its be ng enacted now or in the near future. 

2. 

ectio 

meric 

ave b 

broadl 

an a 

issio 

ecret 

ectio 

r les 

3. 

nly a 

capaci 

can or 

ecent 

en emp 

that 

. s. 1 

of th 

ry of 

con ta 

mea.ni 

er seri us obJection appears in connection with 

he bill This Section is apparently directed against 

ens who have served in foreign armies or navies or 

oyed by foreign governments. But it is worded so 

t cover non-Americans, too. The question is. how 

w opera-e to force a non-u.s. citizen to obtain per- Secret ry of State, the Secretary of War, and the 

he Navy before divulging certain information? This 

ns an i practical prQvision andJVould simply be_ more 

gless. 

The ill seeas to have been drawn up on the theory that 

who has obtained the information in an official 

y, by irtue o his service in, for, or with the government, 

should be subj cted to its provisions. But most of the 

violat ons of ecurity have been committed by people who 

ked for the government or been in the Army or Navy. 

be tou bed by the proposed law. 

ill only takes care of willful leakages~ where 

information must be present. But in many 

roved for Release b NSA on 09-30-2013 ursuantto E .0. 1352 

WDGAS Form No 1078 

26 Nov 45 38900 LIFT HERE USE OTHER SIDE 

PAGE NO __ l __ 
REF ID:A39972 

TO FROM DATE SUBJECT 

AS-20 AS-14 28 Apr 47 Bill 8.1019 (continued) 

cases, 

care le 

real i 

have o 

of lea 

very w 

highes 

differ 

ma.king 

ing th 

he is 

in his 

in an T 

State,, 

care o 

materi 

Nowher 

apply 

all th 

prove 

the St 

paral 

age 

of cl 

r indi 

the d 

curity 

what w 

ritish 

ept po 

ent 1 

B than 

ssified cryptologic inf'ormation comes from 

cretion, because of a failure to realize the 

sclosure or to understand Lhe effect it may 

And it seems to me that tb~ latter source 

should try to cover a.a well as the former. 

Official Secrets Act, which apparently works 

sibly in the case of "personages" on the 

vel), puts the maintenance of security on a 

that of having to obtain authority before 

It puts the burden on the fndiv1dual possessno matter how he obtained it--and tells him 

its security. !f a person "ba.ving information 

s it "for the benefit of any foreign power or 

re udicial to the sa.fet or interests of the 

supplied or if he fails to take reasonable 

ts himself as to endanger the safety of (the 

ion" he is d.eemed guilty of viola.ting the law. 

de for a proper authority to wheim one -might - to disclose. The disclosure h~ving baen•made, 

to penalize the one who bas ms.de it -is to 

as preJugicial to-tfie safety or interests of 

n who makes a disclosure does so at his own 

out to have constituted a violation Gf 

enalized. That sort of law has plenty of 

body can say that it sets up a censo~ship or 

eedom ~r speech or press in Great Britain 

use of the Official Secrets Act. 

from the latter, I have made an attempt to 

esent S.1019, to cover both sources of leak2 above, and to parallel the severity of 

classification of the in:f'ormation disclosed--

a class rica.tion, the more severe the penalty. This 

an elem nt in any previous bill that I am aware or, 

one t t appe rs reasonable. The attached draft is Lhereubmitt d for s ch use as may be ma.de of it. 

s 

<hJ~~a.-$--~ ~ WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAfi ~ -- Inc 

1. 

2. 

opy of' 

raft o 

evisio 

S.1019 

propos d 

Chief, Communications Research 

• • PAGENQ __ _ - c...