Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. SOURWINE. What is an engineered military circuit, General? General DUPLANTIS. It is a most economical type of service that we can obtain and still have the facility that we require.

The fact, as stated in this description, that it is called up when it is needed, gives it its title. It is an engineered circuit. You pay for the installation charge, pay a small monthly charge for the terminal equipment. You don't actually pay for the circuits until you need them. You call them up-it's all carefully arranged so that this is in action in about 35 minutes, and then you begin to pay.

So we have the capability and the capacity of an excellent system at the least cost possible.

Mr. SOURWINE. This means, then, that you have circuits in being which are not used by the Government and yet which, for the protection of the Government, for the security of your program, need to be protected?

General DUPLANTIS. Very definitely.

Mr. SOURWINE. Has OCDM ever taken a position on whether or not there are adequate Federal laws to protect not only the communication systems currently being used but also those which it schedules to use in the event of an emergency?

General DUPLANTIS. Yes. In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee dated April 4, 1960, the OCDM pointed out that current law (18 U.S.C. 1362) is not adequate.

From what I have said here today, it is apparent that few, if any, of our systems are operated or controlled by the United States. Rather, these networks are owned by commercial carriers and are under their complete supervision. They decide which of alternate cables or microwave facilities will carry out circuits. They replace damaged or defective equipment and otherwise repair and maintain the facilities.

Certainly, it cannot be argued that our standby facilities are under Government control prior to the time they are activated.

While we might be said to control these facilities when actually in use, or when they are being held idle for us, it seems clear to me that they are not under our control if they are being used for normal commercial traffic, subject to our requirement for them in the event of an emergency.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do I correctly apprehend your meaning, General, that you find no fault-the Agency finds no fault with the substantive provisions of the existing law respecting protection of those lines which, by its terms, are included under the provisions of the law, but that you do find there fault with the definition of the lines which are so included and that that fault is that it does not adequately cover the lines which you feel need to be protected?

General DUPLANTIS. That is exactly correct, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Would willful damage to these many systems be detrimental to the national security?

General DUPLANTIS. Yes, sir. Of course, the seriousness of harm to the Nation's defense would depend to a certain extent upon the extent of the damage.

On the other hand, from my knowledge of the systems, I could outline a type of willful damage that would be only slight, yet it would seriously handicap the OCDM.

I trust that it will suffice to say that willful or malicious damage could isolate from the OCDM networks an entire city or even a State and thereby cause the use of substitute facilities which might seriously handicap immediate implementation of OCDM programs for civilian defense.

A future enemy would like nothing better, for example, than to disrupt our warning system just prior to attack. Many lives could be lost that otherwise might be saved.

In conclusion, I would like to give a brief explanation that might be helpful. In leasing communications from the carriers for our purposes, one does not rent a wire or series of wires from point A to point B which is marked with that agency's name.

You lease a service of a certain type. The routing used by the carriers may change from day to day or even from minute to minute due to the numerous rerouting capabilities of the carriers. This rerouting is done to maintain constant service during circuit outages and to equalize loads upon the system.

To illustrate, the destruction of switching centers near Des Moines, Iowa, could impair the communication services that would otherwise be available between St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.

In the sense that in times of emergency, the entire system is at the disposal of the Federal Government, it is impossible to define what is "operated by the United States."

The Federal Government does allocate and determine priorities of service and to some degree, restoration.

In this context, the entire system is controlled by the United States and any malicious damage should be so considered.

Mr. SOURWINE. General, to help make that point clear, during the past war I had occasion to make a long distance call, a high priority call from Washington to Seattle and the circuits were busy and when the priority was given, they patched me up a circuit through Atlanta and Minneapolis to Seattle.

Is this the kind of thing you have in mind that would be done in order to keep your circuits open by shifting the routings even perhaps that much or perhaps even more?

General DUPLANTIS. This is done automatically every day, all day long.

There are large machines that search for a good circuit and should you be talking on a long-distance call across the country and have a circuit outage on a circuit, the machine will automatically seek a line that is hot and patch you through on this line and it may go by a completely different route around the United States.

It would not follow the shortest possible route. This is done by microsegments. The capability of passing a message from one coast to another is actually weighed by the capability of the entire Bell System.

Mr. SOURWINE. Go ahead, General.

General DUPLANTIS. That is all I had, sir, with the exception of one more paragraph of the prepared testimony.

In closing, I wish to state that the common carriers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in order to insure continuity of service in emergencies.

The Federal Government has encouraged this effort by briefings, joint staff discussions and conferences. Of course, they are in business

and wish to continue so after an attack. One could argue that to them it's just good business.

My personal experience in working with their staffs on a daily basis is that the effort they are exerting to insure that Federal services continue without interruption goes far beyond a business proposition. There is a real patriotic endeavor to contribute their utmost to the total defense effort.

If I may, sir, I would like to go off the record to extend those remarks.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SOURWINE. Back on the record.

General, your reference to the inadequacy of the present law, being section 1362 of title 18, had reference, I take it, to the words "operated or controlled by the United States" which are the words that define the area of protection given by that section of the law.

General DUPLANTIS. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. You are not a lawyer, are you, General?

General DUPLANTIS. A sea lawyer, sir. I am not a legal lawyer. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know, sir, whether your agency has given thought to the precise language which should be substituted in order to give the desired coverage and the desired protection?

General DUPLANTIS. From the information that I have, as of today, such language has not been prepared by the agency.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you familiar with House bill 8138?

General DUPLANTIS. Yes, sir, I have that.

Mr. SOURWINE. This would substitute for the words "operated or controlled by the United States," the words, "used or useful to the military or civil defense functions of the United States."

General DUPLANTIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether that language is considered adequate?

General DUPLANTIS. Sir, may I speak as a communications man now, and not as a lawyer?

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, of course.

General DUPLANTIS. In the way that I have described this system and how it works, the language as proposed could be interpreted to extend to the entire communications systems of the common carrier. Mr. SOURWINE. This is not desired, not necessary? General DUPLANTIS. I believe it is necessary, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. You believe it is?

General DUPLANTIS. I believe it is.

Mr. SOURWINE. Have you given consideration to the language used or intended to be used for military or civil defense functions of the United States?

General DUPLANTIS. Again, from the communications standpoint, we could only indicate what would be intended to be used if we knew how heavy the attack would be and what our requirements of seizure would be.

This, of course, is very nebulous, but we can say that since our communications capability actually is measured by the capability of the common carrier, we can say that we have a requirement for all of it. A damage to a switching center such as one of the large ones near Chicago could damage the communications that we would have a requirement for.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, you have your plans to cover all possibilities, don't you, all those that you can foresee?

General DUPLANTIS. Only in terms of a general plan such as a listing of specific circuits which we would need, know we do not have. It would be impossible to do.

Mr. SOURWINE. You do not have?

General DUPLANTIS. Do not have.

Mr. SOURWINE. From that standpoint then, the words "used or useful" would seem preferable to the words "used or intended to be used." General DUPLANTIS. Definitely.

Mr. SOURWINE. You do not think that is useful; it is too broad? General DUPLANTIS. It is very broad and in my opinion it should be broad.

Mr. SOURWINE. You think it is necessary?

General DUPLANTIS. Very definitely.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is there anything you think that the committee should know, sir, that you would like to tell us off the record? General DUPLANTIS. Perhaps I could list one or two, off the record, if I may.

Senator JOHNSTON. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SOURWINE. Back on the record.

General DUPLANTIS. For purposes of the record, communications constitute a most desirable target for sabotage, and any efforts by Federal law that could be taken which would make this more difficult, we should not overlook the opportunity to take it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you feel that it is a reasonable expectation that an effort to sabotage these lines and communication centers will be made at the time or immediately prior to an attack?

General DUPLANTIS. I would not like to predict that it will be made, but I certainly would indicate that it is very probable.

Mr. SOURWINE. You would consider it a likely enemy objective? General DUPLANTIS. Very much so.

Mr. SOURWINE. I have no more questions of this witness, Mr. Chair

man.

Senator HRUSKA. General, you have directed some comments toward the language of title 18, section 1362; namely, the words "Operated or controlled by the United States."

Have you, or has your office had any analysis of that language made as to its sufficiency by a legal agency, the Department of Justice, or some other legal staff as to its sufficiency?

General DUPLANTIS. In answer to your question, sir, we did not request such an evaluation be made, but I have information that it was so evaluated and I have been furnished comments from the Attorney General's office on the problems involved in bringing to trial and convicting people who have been charged with violations within the context of that law, as written.

It becomes a very difficult charge to prove in terms of the language because you get back to the communications problem of defining what is operated and controlled by the United States.

You end up with a situation in which you must prove that you have a communications center on one end, manned by Government employees with a privately leased circuit to a communications center on

the other end, in turn manned by Government employees, whether they are military or nonmilitary, and that the damage is done to this part of the system.

This makes it a very restrictive and a very difficult type of charge to get a conviction on.

Senator HRUSKA. At one point in your statement, you did indicate a series of circumstances which you summarized and then added these words

in this context, the entire system is controlled by the United States. Any malicious damage should be so considered.

However, while it is conceivable that the context would indicate that, your thought is and your idea is, it is a matter of proof. Is that the idea?

General DUPLANTIS. The law, as written, it would be very difficult to prove and I wouldn't pretend to be a man to write the language in the law.

From the communications standpoint, we need a language change. Senator HRUSKA. It just seems to me that the system of engineered military circuit to which you have referred would be quite broad, it would be quite comprehensive and it shouldn't be too difficult to prove where it is and where those lines are and the damage to those lines.

It just seems to me that "under the control of" wouldn't necessarily mean you would have to have both hands on it all the time if it was subject to call under any given circumstance. It would be under the control of the Government, if it were subject to call, with preliminary arrangements made at both ends, and I just wondered if that phase had been explored.

General DUPLANTIS. Sir, you would never be able to define the system that you had reference to since it is subject to call.

As I tried to explain in this rerouting process which goes on all the time, you can't put your finger on the circuits that you will call up. You know where the terminal ends are, but these circuits will take devious paths from minute to minute.

Senator HRUSKA. And they are all considered a part of this engineered military circuit?

General DUPLANTIS. That is correct.

Senator HRUSKA. And if some damage to any part thereof occurred, it would be considered damage within the meaning of the law, would it not?

General DUPLANTIS. If you could define which ones you had reference to.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, if they are so comprehensive that it could be any of them.

General DUPLANTIS. This could be true, but it would be very difficult.

Senator HRUSKA. I understand the circuitous business.

General DUPLANTIS. That it goes round and round and you don't know where it goes from minute to minute.

Senator HRUSKA. I just raise the question, not that I would be out of sympathy with clarifying the language and making it more specific and making the problem of proof more readily obtainable, but I just wonder if someone somewhere along the line will not raise that

« AnteriorContinuar »