GovernmentExecutive.com

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks exposed the problems that result from tightly compartmentalized information, intelligence agencies have moved from a "need to know" culture to a "need to share" approach recommended by the 9/11 Commission and enshrined in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act.

Mike McConnell, director of National Intelligence, and Dale Meyerrose, associate director of National Intelligence and chief information officer, took the "need to share" culture a step further Friday with the public release of the U.S. Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy, which is built around what McConnell described as a "responsibility to provide" mind-set.

Meyerrose said basing the intelligence sharing strategy on development of a "responsibility to provide" culture would enable the intelligence community to unlock data "from a fragmented information technology infrastructure spanning multiple intelligence agencies and make it readily discoverable and accessible from the earliest point at which an analyst can add value."

The information-sharing model will rely on attribute-based access and tagged data with built-in security to create a trusted collaboration environment, Meyerrose said. But the new sharing strategy report emphasized that "information sharing is a behavior and not a technology."

At the same time, the report said, the intelligence community must develop an advanced information discovery and retrieval system (the digital version of a library card catalog) based on common metadata tagging standards to support discovery, search and retrieval, and "universal discovery" processes, standards and tools, and integration of intelligence networks.

This bold approach raises a number of questions, the sharing strategy report said, including whether laws or regulations must be changed to support the effort and whether enough funds have been appropriated to support the initiative.

COMMENTS

• The only information to keep secret in intelligence analysis and reporting relates to sources and methods. Any other position is most likely self-serving for the person or agency keeping it classified. There is no legitimate reason for failing to write ALL intelligence for release. When to release it, and to whom, is a legitimate topic for debate. That the overall security of the nation benefits from widespread release remains debatable only because of the self-serving institutional interests of the intelligence agencies. It has little to do with national security per se. Larry Irons Posted April 7, 2008 10:06 AM
• While it's true that risk accompanies the decision to move toward a "responsibility to provide" approach, the risks of not doing so have had equally catastrophic results (e.g., 9/11, the current war effort). By mandating the agencies to collaborate amongst (and within!) themselves, they should produce more timely and accurate intelligence. This will provide better direction for our policymakers and ensure a more secure nation as a result. Adam Posted April 7, 2008 10:00 AM
• I can agree with the need to share data but we have tumbled too far down this slope. We are now at the point we are opening up all our secrets for any individual who screams about wanting to know the data. I can say right now many secrets have been compromised as well as investigations due to this policy. I have seen many local law enforcement agencies politic for access to sensative data for no other reason than to be able to "boast" about being "in the know". These same agencies have had no logical need to have the information other than wanting to read it. In due time when this info becomes known to the public and highly sensative cases have been compromised by loose lips, the next rage will be "need to know". Frank Posted April 6, 2008 7:22 PM