c — -■;:.;■■>- 
AF0;%|r"Co1  E^astda/skk/7      *5     Wtn  27  May  AS 
MEMORANDUM  FOR  RECORD 
PROBLEfr: 
1.  To  cor^ne/jt  on  the  proposed  US-Canadian  agreement  of  exchange  of 
C0.7HJT  matters. 
FACTS  AI-Z?  L'TSCllS.:ICIi 
2.  By  memorandum  for  members  of  USCIE,  dtd  17  Way  48,  subject,  "Proposed 
US-Canadian  Agreement",  the  Coordinator  of  Joint  Operations  requests  comment 
and/or  concurrence  in  the  draft  of  a  letter  prepared  by  Mr.  Grean  for  signature 
by  the  Chairman  of  the  Canadian  Communications  Research  Committee  (CRC).  It  is 
planned  that  the  letter  be  informally  coordinated  and  accepted  by  USCIB  to  insure 
that  wh.-n  signed  and  dispatched  by  the  Chairman  of  CRC,  the  Chairman  of  USCIE 
can  dispatch  a  concurring  reply  immediately* 
3.  By  memorandum  for  members  of  USCIE,  dtd  ZI¥  f.'r.y  48,  subject,  "Amendment 
to  Proposed  Canadian  Letter  cf  Exchange",  the  Coordinator  of  Joint  Operations 
advises  the  members  of  USCIB  of  a  rewording,  as  proposed  by  Chairman  of  USCIE, 
of  a  paragraph  6  of  the  letter,  drafted  by  w'r.  Cresn. 
4«  On  reviewing  the  drefted  letter  with  amended  paragraph,  it  is  considered 
that  with  the  exception  of  paragraphs  5,   6a,  and  17,  the  letter  is  acceptable  as 
crafted. 
3. 
In  paragraph  5  the  terra  "Co:.:munication  Intelligence  Tetters"  is  defined 
in  vague  language.  The  British-United  States  Communication  Intelligence  Agreement 
(c'-il'SA)   defines  "Communication  Intelligence"  in  very  clear  language.  In  the  in- 
terest of  clarity  of  understanding  with  the  Canadians, and  to  insure  that  the 
understanding  is  the  same  as  with  the  British^it  is  believed  that  substantially 
the  same  language  as  is  used  in  the  BRUSA  should  be  used  in  the  agreement  with 
the  Canadians. 
6a.  If  the  term  "Co  munination  Intelligence  Matter"  is  eliminated  from 
paragraph  5  and  the  BRUSA  definition  used,  the  title  of  paragraph  6  should  be 
changed  to  read  "Extent  of  Exchange  of  Information  Related  to  Communication 
Intelligence". 
b.  The  use  cf  the  BRUSA  definition  will  reruire  that  the  introduction  to 
paragraph  6  t-  changed  **o  "The  Two  Communication  Intelligence  authorities  will 
exchange  the  following  information  on  the  -bidi  indicated s". 
c.  The  introduction  to  paragraph  6a  uses  the  expression "any  published  summaries 
cf  translations".  There  are  no  summaries  of   translations  published.   It  is  Relieved 
that  this  expression  refers  to  gists.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  7?crd  "gists"  should 
be  substituted  for  the  expression. 
a.   It  is  considered  -.ha*-  the  provisions  of  paragraphic'  (a)  (ii)  will 
result  in  the  c deplete  exchange  cf  all  information.  Th&^'Canaoians  have  no  informa- 
"icr.  to  exchange.  The  coverages  c~  "lc-  gained  by  cx<Tplete  exchange,  are"  far 
outWfci=;k«i5  by  the  disady*rf-a£;e  cf  a  :.:'.ier  dissertation  of  the  infptsnation.   It  is 
helLss-fed   that  this  satiparagrs-p-h  nhcuic  be  re^rr^t.ten  to  provide^o"?  the  exchange  of 
information  on  s^*need    tz   knew"  basis  as-^feLe  rained  b;  the  originating  aufcffority.
d.  It  is  consicered  inat  the  provisions  of  paragraph  6  (a)  will 
result  ii;  the  complete  exchange  of  all  information.  The  Canadian 
have  no  information  to  exchange.  The  advantages,  to  be  gained  by 
complete  exchange,  are  far  outweighed  by  the  disadvantage  of  wider 
dissemination  cf  the  information.  It  is  believed  that  subparagraph 
(i)  she  lid  be  rewritten  to  restrict  the  exchange  of  information  to 
ne^ot  the  requirements  for  assistance  on  mutually  agreed  80KIKT 
activities  and  that  subparagraph  (ii)  should  be  rewritten  for  the 
excange  of  information  on  a  "need  tc  know"  basis  as  determined  by  ..he 
iz'j  rating   agency • 
7.  While  there  is  no  objection  to  the  assumption  that  t:  ire  will  be  liaison 
officers  as  stated  in  paragraph  17,  it  is  believed  that  the  assumption  should  be 
qualified  in  such  a  nanner  as   to  permit  control  of  the  activities  of  the  liaison 
officers* 
3.  Sign  and  dispatch  attached  memorandum  for  the  CJO.  The  memorandum 
recor.jner.iLS  the  changes  indicated  in  paragraphs  5>  6,  and  7  above.
(Page  1) 
AFOIR-SR  Col  Houston/ jak/7    5  Wtn  27  May  48 
MEMORANDUM  FOR  RECORD 
PROBLEM 
1.  To  comment  on  the  proposed  US-Canadian  agreement  of  exchange  of 
COMINT  matters. 
FACTS  AND  DISCUSSION 
2.  By  memorandum  for  members  of  USCIB,  dtd  17  May  48,  subject,  "Proposed 
US-Canadian  Agreement",  the  Coordinator  of  Joint  Operations  requests  comment 
and/or  concurrence  in  the  draft  of  a  letter  prepared  by  Mr.  Crean  for  signature  by  the 
Chairman  of  the  Canadian  Communications  Research  Committee  (CRC).  It  is  planned  that  the 
letter  be  informally  coordinated  and  accepted  by  USCIB  to  insure  that  when  signed  and 
dispatched  by  the  Chairman  of  CRC,  the  Chairman  of  USCIB  can  dispatch  a  concurring  reply 
immediately. 
3.  By  memorandum  for  members  of  USCIB,  dtd  24  May  48,  subject,  "Amendment 
to  Proposed  Canadian  Letter  of  Exchange",  The  Coordinator  of  Joint  Operations 
advises  the  members  of  USCIB  of  a  rewording,  as  proposed  by  Chairman  of  USCIB, 
of  a  paragraph  6  of  the  letter,  drafted  by  Mr.  Crean. 
4.  On  reviewing  the  drafted  letter  with  amended  paragraph,  it  is  considered 
that  with  the  exception  of  paragraphs  5,  6a,  and  17,  the  letter  is  acceptable  as 
drafted. 
5.  In  paragraph  5  the  term  "Communications  Intelligence  Matters"  is  defined 
in  vague  language.  The  British-United  States  Communications  Intelligence  Agreement 
(BRUSA)  defines  "Communications  Intelligence"  in  very  clear  language.  In  the  in- 
terest of  clarity  of  understanding  with  the  Canadians,  and  to  insure  that  the 
understanding  is  the  same  as  with  the  British,  it  is  believed  that  substantially 
the  same  language  as  is  used  in  the  BRUSA  should  be  used  in  the  agreement  with 
the  Canadians. 
6a.  If  the  term  "Communication  Intelligence  Matter"  is  eliminated  from 
paragraph  5  and  the  BRUSA  definition  used,  the  title  of  paragraph  6  should  be 
changed  to  read  "Extent  of  Exchange  of  Information  Related  to  Communication 
Intelligence". 
b.  The  use  of  the  BRUSA  definition  will  require  that  the  introduction  to 
paragraph  6  be  changed  to  "The  Two  Communication  Intelligence  authorities  will 
exchange  the  following  information  on  the  bas[?]s  indicated:". 
c.The  introduction  to  paragraph  6a  uses  the  expression  "any  published  summaries 
of  translations".  There  are  no  summaries  of  translations  published.  It  is  believed 
that  this  expression  refers  to  gists.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  word  "gists"  should 
be  substituted  for  the  expression. 
d.  It  is  considered  that  the  provisions  of  paragraph  6  (a)  (ii)  will 
result  in  the  complete  exchange  of  all  information.  The  Canadians  have  no  informa- 
tion to  exchange.  The  advantages  to  be  gained  by  complete  exchange,  are  far 
outweighed  by  the  disadvantage  of  a  wider  dissemination  of  the  information.  It  is 
believed  that  this  subparagraph  should  be  rewritten  to  provide  for  the  exchange  of 
information  on  a  "need  to  know"  basis  as  determined  by  the  originating  authority.
(Page  2) 
d.  It  is  considered  that  the  provisions  of  paragraph  6  (a)  will 
result  in  the  complete  exchange  of  all  information.  The  Canadian 
have  no  information  to  exchange.  The  advantages  to  be  gained  by 
complete  exchange,  are  far  outweighed  by  the  disadvantage  of  wider 
dissemination  of  information.  It  is  believed  that  subparagraph 
(i)  should  be  rewritten  to  restrict  the  exchange  of  information  to 
meet  the  requirements  for  assistance  on  mutually  agreed  COMINT 
activities  and  that  subparagraph  (ii)  should  be  rewritten  for  the 
exchange  of  information  on  a  "need  to  know"  basis  as  determined  by  the 
originating  agency. 
7.  While  there  is  no  objection  to  the  assumption  that  there  will  be  liaison 
officers  as  stated  in  paragraph  17,  it  is  believed  that  the  assumption  should  be 
qualified  in  such  a  manner  as  to  permit  control  of  the  activities  of  the  liaison 
officers. 
8.  Sign  and  dispatch  attached  memorandum  for  the  CJO.  The  memorandum 
recommends  the  changes  indicated  in  paragraphs  5,  6,  and  7  above.