Privacy advocates wary of data 'fusion centers'

Privacy concerns persist with state-run "fusion centers" designed to help law enforcers investigate suspected terrorist plots, nongovernmental policy watchers told a Homeland Security Department panel on Wednesday.

More than 40 state, local and regional centers have been established in recent years, and several bills now pending before Congress have elements that address the centers. Fusion centers are financed by the states and the Homeland Security Department, and there is no uniform structure.

A July report from the Congressional Research Service found that the high-tech intelligence operations "have increasingly gravitated toward an all-crimes and even broader all-hazards approach." The move worries privacy advocates, who voiced concerns to Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.

Mike German, a former FBI agent now with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Technology Daily the centers are "not really working as they are supposed to." The "mission creep" could have serious privacy implications for citizens -- many of whom are unaware that the programs exist, he said.

A 125-page Justice Department handbook released in August 2005 made multiple suggestions for the centers, "but it's unclear whether those guidelines have been adopted by every fusion center," German said.

He said the ACLU, which has its own report coming out next month, fears that inclusion of non-law enforcement agencies and private-sector players is "going to create information-sharing relationships that don't require the legal process that is required now."

The Constitution Project's Sharon Bradford Franklin said in an e-mail before the meeting that she planned to discuss her group's published guidelines for public video surveillance and its report on promoting accuracy in using government watch lists.

Technology has rushed ahead of the law, she said, and the Constitution Project's report provides practical guidance on how communities can establish video surveillance systems that protect residents' privacy rights and civil liberties.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center also offered recommendations. The group said the location, jurisdiction and amount of funding each center receives should be disclosed, adding that any federal money for them should be suspended pending a full privacy-impact analysis.

EPIC also called for a Homeland Security inspector general probe, as well as annual reports from the centers on the numbers of arrests, prosecutions and convictions by category of offense directly related to each program's operations.

"There are too many unanswered questions regarding the creation, purpose and use of fusion centers," EPIC Associate Director Lillie Coney said in written testimony.

Robert Riegle, Homeland Security's point person for fusion centers, Sue Reingold from the office of the director of national intelligence, and Lt. Jeff Wobbleton of the Maryland State Police acknowledged that the programs are working well but need improvements.

Riegle called the initiative "a novel and different approach to information-sharing" and said privacy was a top concern when each center was formed. Wobbleton said transparency is a core part of the mission. "We do not want to mess this up," he added.