Speaking of classification reform, Rep. Jane Harman and 13 Democratic colleagues this week introduced “The Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2007.”
The legislation focuses on the Department of Homeland Security and aims to make the Department a model of judicious information policy by curtailing classification and other restrictions on disclosure.
“The goal is simple: make the Department of Homeland Security the ‘gold standard’ when it comes to preventing over-classification and to limiting the use of sensitive but unclassified markings,” Rep. Harman said in a news release.
“DHS is an excellent place to start and — if it gets a handle on its own burgeoning over- and pseudo-classification addiction– can become a ‘best practices’ center and the test bed for the rest of the Federal Government,” she said.
The legislation’s incremental approach has much to recommend it, though some of the details of the proposed strategy are questionable, obscure or remain to be determined.
It is probably unworkable, for example, to insist on “allow[ing] the classification of documents only after unclassified, shareable versions of intelligence have been produced.” Some classified intelligence documents will have no unclassified counterpart, though the use of unclassified “tear sheets” should be encouraged whenever possible.
Other proposed steps, such as establishment of “an independent Department declassification review board to expedite the declassification of documents,” could help create new impetus for disclosure.
Using the NIST as an example, the Radiation Physics Building (still without the funding to complete its renovation) is crucial to national security and the medical community. If it were to go down (or away), every medical device in the United States that uses radiation would be decertified within 6 months, creating a significant single point of failure that cannot be quickly mitigated.
The federal government can support more proactive, efficient, and cost-effective resiliency planning by certifying predictive models to validate and publicly indicate their quality.
We need a new agency that specializes in uncovering funding opportunities that were overlooked elsewhere. Judging from the history of scientific breakthroughs, the benefits could be quite substantial.
The cost of inaction is not merely economic; it is measured in preventable illness, deaths and diminished livelihoods.