Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) placed two “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU) State Department documents in the Congressional Record last week, illustrating the informal, non-binding character of this information control marking.
Rep. Wolf took to the House floor to express his views on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an advocacy organization that he said had unacceptable links to terrorist groups. CAIR has disputed such allegations.
But what is of interest here is Rep. Wolf’s willingness to introduce two State Department cables that are specifically marked “sensitive” and “SBU” and to place them in the public record. Doing so might annoy the State Department and violate unofficial norms of confidentiality, but it breaks no law.
The problematic aspect of SBU and similar labels is that anyone can mark anything “sensitive” or “for official use only” for any reason. The system is completely unregulated. But the flip side is that records bearing such markings are not rigorously protected and in fact are often openly distributed.
As the government moves to replace all kinds of SBU markings with a more uniform “controlled unclassified information” (CUI) system, the expectation is that the standards for applying controls on sensitive but unclassified records will be more clearly articulated, limited and enforced. By the same token, however, the freewheeling disclosure of such records may grind to a halt. It’s hard to know in advance if the benefits in terms of public access to government information will exceed the costs.
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
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.