A new “Information Sharing Strategy” (pdf) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence warns that traditional security practices that restrict disclosure of information have become counterproductive.
“The Intelligence Community’s ‘need to know’ culture, a necessity during the Cold War, is now a handicap that threatens our ability to uncover, respond, and protect against terrorism and other asymmetric threats,” the document declares.
The new Strategy defines information sharing goals and as well as near-term and long-term implementation objectives. Goals include uniform government-wide information policies, improved connectivity, and increased inter-agency collaboration.
Notably absent from the document is any role for the public in information sharing. The DNI Strategy has no place for the notion of an engaged citizenry that has intelligence information needs of its own.
A copy of the new Strategy, which has not yet been released, was obtained by Secrecy News. See “U.S. Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy,” February 22, 2008.
In December 2007, DNI McConnell issued Intelligence Community Policy Memorandum (ICPM) 2007-500-3 on “Intelligence Information Sharing” (pdf). A copy of the document, which has not been publicly released, is here.
Two related IC Policy Memoranda, which have been officially released, are these:
“Preparing Intelligence to Meet the Intelligence Community’s ‘Responsibility to Provide'” (pdf), ICPM 2007-200-2, December 11, 2007.
“Unevaluated Domestic Threat Tearline Reports” (pdf), ICPM 007-500-1, November 19, 2007.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.