Page 1 of 3

Janice Kephart-Roberts

From: John B. Smith] |

Sent: Tuesday, October 21 , 2003 1 :41 PM 9/11 Personal Privacy
To: Janice Kephart-Roberts
_.--•--•

I
Subject: RE: Student Tracking Programs

Janis,
I never made the technical presentations to Wyrsch, however I made them to the OIRM
organization within INS. The date of the first presentation that I had sent to you was late 96, early
97. I was not on the team at that time, it was the original proposal from EDS. The second
presentation called the Intel pitch (for intelligence) was given to Dan Cadman's team who were the
intelligence guru's at the time within the INS, the OIRM team within the INS, and the FBI all in
August of 2001. It was also given to the CIA and OMB, but I believe those presentations were after
9-11. I'm sorry, but I don't have the names of the attendees, those files were lost to me when I left
EDS.

The technology was clearly there and any technologist will validate that for you. OIRM was
the watchdog group within the INS and they fought hard against technological advancement, in
fairness it would have had a rippling effect throughout their systems. The smart thing would have
been to allow us to develop the core application as a standalone entity and later add in the
communications links to the other INS systems. There were always financial issues since they were
so delinquent in getting the fee and student regulations in place. Once Morrie left the team, the INS
seemed to loose interest in changing the regulations (the business process) to optimize available
technology, for example biometrics.

On to your specific questions;

1. Oracle approached senior levels within the INS and offered to develop the system
around their database software free. The Oracle relational database software is the
core of most of the INS applications, but the reason their offer was rejected was that
the INS was afraid of being tied to the Oracle software? ( I know it doesn't make any
sense)
2. The application was always developed to interface with other applications both
within the INS and externally to other agencies. I have attached another presentation
that I used to technically communicate those concepts within the INS. The INS and
most other agencies I spoke with were paranoid about the security issues involved,
and in truth they were non trivial.
3. The biometrics were feasible at the time, I even proposed to the folks at OIRM that
they use a digitaTphoto of the individuals and include it in their files in the database
then print it on all forms used by the students, once the photo exists in the database it
can be made available everywhere in the system. I envisioned a system where the
information on the student or exchange visitor was made available at the port of entry
to allow the inspectors to quickly and efficiently validate the entry documents that the
individuals were carrying. We even talked about the picture originating at the
consulate when the applications for visa were processed, but the DOS was concerned
about added manpower and cost.

7/30/2004
 Page 2 of 3

The bottom line is that technology today is better then the technology of yesterday, and the
technology of tomorrow will be better then that of today, but congress passed IIRIRA in 1996
and it's now 2003 and the requirements of that bill as it was originally have not been
implemented let alone the changes required by the patriot act. Please let me know what kind
of additional information you would like, I'm worried about overloading you with things you
may not be able to use.

John

—Original Message
From: Janice Kephart-Roberts [mailto:jkephart-roberts@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:51 PM
To: 'John B. Smith1
Subject: RE: Student Tracking Programs
•19/11 P e r s o n a l P r i v a c y
John, / /

That Intel presentation was great. Who received that povyerpbint within INS and outside INS? What
are the dates of your two presentation you sent me? ;

Thanks so much. Did you ever provide a presentation or have a meeting updating Wyrsch on the
technology side? One thing I need to establish is that the technology was there. Three things in that
regard: /

1. You had mentioned in our phone conversation that, I think, Oracle was going to
provide the software (?) for free. Can you tell me more about that?
2. Would the system have been a stand alone or be able to integrate with other INS
systems? /
3. How feasible were the biometrics? Would they have integrated with ident and
photos DOS uses? /

Thanks again. ;

Janice /

Original Message
From: John B. Smith [mailto|_
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:40 PM
To; Janis Roberts
Cc:i T
Subject: Student Tracking Programs

Janis,
I am attaching the fee regulation that was initiated for CIPRIS/SEVIS and a copy of a
presentation that went to the intelligence group at INS, and the FBI in August of 2001. I don't
claim any great forethought to what was about to happen in September of that year, but clearly
understood the value of the intelligence that could have been gathered by this application. I
will never understand the logic behind the bureaucratic BS that prevented a timely release of
the fee regulation that would have provided funding to CIPRIS/SEVIS, it was clearly political
and as you can see by the Intel presentation we were fought not only in the INS itself, but in
the offices of congress and the senate. As late as July and August there were clear attempts to
repeal IIRIRA. One aside is that the relationship between the Department of State and the INS
was abysmal, nether organization had a regulation in place as required by IIRIRA as late as

7/30/2004
 Page 3 of3

12/02, and the J regulation which was the responsibility of State was not complete when I left
the program. One aspect of the J visa that should have worried everyone was that literally
thousands of internationals entered the country on summer work programs that nobody tracked
or even attempted to track.

I I

i *# • • « » » » * » • * » • * « » » + • , >»»*,

9/11 Personal P r i v a c y

7/30/2004