Showing papers by "National Security Agency published in 1981"
TL;DR: In the spring of 1980, the American Council on Education formed and commissioned the Public Cryptography Study Group (PCSG) to examine the question of prepublication review of papers in cryptology.
Abstract: In the spring of 1980, the American Council on Education (ACE) formed and commissioned the Public Cryptography Study Group (PCSG) to examine the question of prepublication review of papers in cryptology. This question had been raised by the National Security Agency (NSA) in its concern for protecting the national security. ACM President Daniel McCracken appointed David Brandin as ACM's representative to the PCSG. (In PCSG jargon, Brandin was our \"'nominee\".) '
11 citations
TL;DR: The purpose of the Final Report of the Working Group is to provide an overview of the technical area addressed by the working group, to summarize the group's discussions at the Workshop, and to state the conclusions reached by the Group.
Abstract: of this activity is that it is destined, at least within the next five years to be done by a free marketplace, rather than in a central facility. The purpose of the Final Report of the Working Group is threefold : (1) to provide an overview of the technical area addressed by th e Working Group, (2) to summarize the group's discussions at the Workshop, and (3) to state the conclusions reached by the Group. The specific technical area that our Working Group was asked to address was \"Advanced Development Support Systems. \" We wer e asked to consider deliberately a long-range time frame. Specifically, we assumed throughout our discussion that the programmin g environments we were considering were intended for use a decade or more in the future. Our discussions were wide-ranging, technically advanced, and very lively. They were catalyzed by a creative ferment that arose fro m the juxtaposition of the views of the practitioners and advanced thinkers. During the first session of the Working Group, the participants examined two possibilities for the agenda that it would follow. The first possibility was to decide on the characteristics of the user \"setting\" to be addressed by Advanced Development Suppor t Systems and then to address a range of issue areas pertaining to that chosen user setting, such as software quality, the softwar e lifecycle, software management support, program development tools, database properties, documentation, user interfaces, an d maintenance. The rationale for adopting this approach was a recognition that programming environments are engineered artifact s built to suit given purposes and that variation in the purposes for which they are built can lead to variation in the technologies that ar e appropriate. Thus, it was viewed as important first to settle on the characteristics of the user setting with regard to such choices a s single-user versus multiple users, production use or experimental use, long maintenance lifetimes versus short maintenanc e lifetimes, and so forth. Following the selection of an agreed-upon set of characteristics for the setting, it was thought to be profitabl e to examine the technical approaches appropriate to the given setting from a number of different vantage points, and then to attempt
1 citations