There is “an astonishing number of groups and activities concurrently pursuing the subject” of information sharing, according to a newly disclosed 2004 report (pdf) of the Intelligence Science Board (ISB). But those activities are not well coordinated. “In effect, we aren’t even sharing information about information sharing.”
The ISB is a little-known advisory panel that addresses intelligence science and technology issues at the direction of the Director of National Intelligence. Almost all of its products are classified, but a few are not.
It’s hard to say whether the ISB is influential. But it has performed important and interesting work, most notably on the science of interrogation. Its 2006 report on “Educing Information” (pdf), concluded that there was no scientific evidence to support a belief in the efficacy of coercive interrogation. (“Intelligence Science Board Views Interrogation,” Secrecy News, January 15, 2007.)
Now the only other unclassified ISB reports have been released by ODNI under the Freedom of Information Act: “Concept Paper on Trusted Information Sharing” (November 2004) and “What Makes for a Great Analytic Team?: Individual versus Team Approaches to Intelligence Analysis” (February 2005). All of the unclassified ISB reports are available here.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.
FAS has partnered with ICLEI USA to launch the CRI Local Advisory Council.
We sat down with Dr. Max Moritz and Chief Rob Hazard to discuss how communities use time, money, and data to reduce the risk that wildfires pose.