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.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.
To tune into the action on the ground, we convened practitioners, state and local officials, advocates, and policy experts to discuss what it will actually take to deploy clean energy faster, modernize electricity systems, and lower costs for households.