The Public Interest Declassification Board, a White House advisory body, was asked by President Obama to develop recommendations for a “fundamental transformation” of the national security classification system. The Board developed several proposals of its own and solicited others from interested members of the public. All of those, including one from the Federation of American Scientists, have now been posted online for public comment.
The Board will hold a public meeting on May 26 at the National Archives to discuss the proposals.
While well-intentioned, the process suffers from several limitations. First, the President did not specify what manner of “transformation” he had in mind. This is problematic because the path selected for transformation naturally depends on the desired goal. Second, the Board has no particular influence or leverage that it can exert to advance its ultimate recommendations. Even at the White House, most relevant national security personnel seem to be unaware of or uninterested in the Board’s deliberations. Finally, there is no internal incentive to drive transformation and no visible leadership to compel it.
In truth, the classification system is undergoing transformation at every moment, but mostly in undesirable ways. Thus, during President Obama’s first full year in office, the number of “original classification decisions,” or new secrets, grew by 22.6 percent, according to the latest annual report (pdf) from the Information Security Oversight Office.
Denice Ross, former U.S. Chief Data Scientist and Data Policy Institute lead at the Federation of American Scientists, will be honored for her stewardship of public data by the National Academy of Public Administration, where she has been named a Fellow.
Confirmation that the construction of the security perimeter and associated security infrastructure at RAF Lakenheath are still ongoing once again raises questions about whether U.S. nuclear weapons have already been deployed to the base.
Alaskans are sensibly pulling back from the vogue for bans and returning to a western tradition that has worked for more than half a century – one that welcomes innovation but also oversees it closely.
The strength of our nation’s data policy isn’t just in the rules we write, but in how effectively we translate those rules into a system that prioritizes the public good. Join us in this movement to design and build more resilient national data policies.