Comments on: Information Sharing, By Hook or By Crook http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/10/information_sharing_by_hook_or.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Thu, 24 May 2012 10:04:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Jaclyn http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/10/information_sharing_by_hook_or.html/comment-page-1#comment-11321 Jaclyn Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:14:46 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/10/information_sharing_by_hook_or.html#comment-11321 I am a former Foreign Disclosure Officer...I dealt with this for a long time and I agree for the most part on your solution. But, you also have to think of the disclosure of information. It still would have to be "declassified" to a certain extent to rid it of sources and methods. That part plays HUGE and cannot be done by anyone other then the originator of the information. If, indeed that originator creates it for dissemination that would make it easier for everyone. It has to start there. Otherwise, once the "cleared" individuals have the infomation, they would still have to go back to the originator to request a declass cut of it...before it could legally disseminated to anyone. I am a former Foreign Disclosure Officer…I dealt with this for a long time and I agree for the most part on your solution. But, you also have to think of the disclosure of information. It still would have to be “declassified” to a certain extent to rid it of sources and methods. That part plays HUGE and cannot be done by anyone other then the originator of the information. If, indeed that originator creates it for dissemination that would make it easier for everyone. It has to start there. Otherwise, once the “cleared” individuals have the infomation, they would still have to go back to the originator to request a declass cut of it…before it could legally disseminated to anyone.

]]> By: Jim http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/10/information_sharing_by_hook_or.html/comment-page-1#comment-892 Jim Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:01:10 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/10/information_sharing_by_hook_or.html#comment-892 I am a former Military Intelligence officer, and last served as the course manager for the 5th Intelligence training area school course for Security Managers. I just finished reading the article <a href="http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20071006-9999-1n6spies.html" rel="nofollow">"Marine took files as part of spy ring"</a>. In that article I noticed a comment that enemies of the US would find it easier to obtain classified material from local law enforcement agencies than they would from the federal government. I am aware of the various security measures required by the federal government, and I am also aware of the need to get actionable intelligence to those who need it to do their jobs. (comments of the Commandant of the Army Intelligence Center and School). There is no doubt that close cooperation between intelligence services and local police agencies is a must in order to both preserve our freedoms and our safety. It is well known that the threat exists, not only in our nation's largest cities, but also hides in our suburbs and rural areas. Information made available to these suburban and rural law enforcement agencies may tie in with local observations by them and produce more dots to connect. Terrorists (and other enemies) seek locations where they stand a better chance of not being detected. It is for this reason they migrate to these lesser trained and informed jurisdictions in my opinion. The solution would be an easy one to implement. I propose that a single person in each agency be cleared for receipt of classified information, and trained in security requirements. All federal laws and regulations would be enforced at the agency as far as document and other security necessities. Clearing of law enforcement officers would be a simple matter. Federal clearances for "Confidential" and "Secret" material are granted based on a national agency check (NAC). Most departments do this routinely in the hiring process already. If not, they should be. Further, "Top Secret" clearances are granted based on a favorable background check. This is usually done in conjunction with local law enforcement plus interviews. There is no reason that the local agency could not perform those interviews in the manner prescribed. This would also assist federal efforts to complete background investigations by reducing their workload. In the local agency, the cleared "security manager" would decide who had a "need to know" classified information, and how much to reveal. Intelligence methods and sources would, naturally, be required to be withheld. W. James Beattie I am a former Military Intelligence officer, and last served as the course manager for the 5th Intelligence training area school course for Security Managers.

I just finished reading the article “Marine took files as part of spy ring”. In that article I noticed a comment that enemies of the US would find it easier to obtain classified material from local law enforcement agencies than they would from the federal government. I am aware of the various security measures required by the federal government, and I am also aware of the need to get actionable intelligence to those who need it to do their jobs. (comments of the Commandant of the Army Intelligence Center and School).

There is no doubt that close cooperation between intelligence services and local police agencies is a must in order to both preserve our freedoms and our safety. It is well known that the threat exists, not only in our nation’s largest cities, but also hides in our suburbs and rural areas. Information made available to these suburban and rural law enforcement agencies may tie in with local observations by them and produce more dots to connect. Terrorists (and other enemies) seek locations where they stand a better chance of not being detected. It is for this reason they migrate to these lesser trained and informed jurisdictions in my opinion.

The solution would be an easy one to implement. I propose that a single person in each agency be cleared for receipt of classified information, and trained in security requirements. All federal laws and regulations would be enforced at the agency as far as document and other security necessities. Clearing of law enforcement officers would be a simple matter. Federal clearances for “Confidential” and “Secret” material are granted based on a national agency check (NAC). Most departments do this routinely in the hiring process already. If not, they should be. Further, “Top Secret” clearances are granted based on a favorable background check. This is usually done in conjunction with local law enforcement plus interviews. There is no reason that the local agency could not perform those interviews in the manner prescribed. This would also assist federal efforts to complete background investigations by reducing their workload.

In the local agency, the cleared “security manager” would decide who had a “need to know” classified information, and how much to reveal. Intelligence methods and sources would, naturally, be required to be withheld.

W. James Beattie

]]>