The 2005 report at the post link highlights legitimate factors in intelligence analysis that limits the ability of analysts to pro-actively analyze and share data. One of these factors is "the need-to-know."
"This commission recommendation highlighted what it considered to be a significant impediment to comprehensive intelligence analysis — the “‘need-to know’ culture of information protection.”4 The commission suggested that, while the federal government has access to huge volumes of information, procedural and organizational cultural barriers undermined the government’s ability to capitalize on these resources. The commission also cited two specific factors that have helped to perpetuate need-to-know” information practices. One was the lack of robust internal information sharing procedures, which, in turn, contributed to the compartmentalization of information as a standard practice, rather than the regular dissemination of information to the external community of users. According to the commission, current procedures allowed information to be shared if someone specifically requested the information, and then only according to classification and other security protocols. The purpose of such an approach was to guard against the disclosure of information that could create security risks."
It is still true that it is difficult to get law enforcement agencies to share information within their own boundaries, much less with other agencies. In law enforcement, the desire to make a good investigation lead to a successful prosecution for a particular agency and, in many cases, a particular investigator is an obstacle to the development of analysis and information sharing. Analysts have difficulty getting the information they need to do a good job because of the nature of the structure and culture of law enforcement.
The US Department of Justice's (USDOJ) Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program report highlights some of the problems. Here is an excerpt of that October 2005 report:
"Notwithstanding examples of successful information sharing, the current environment requires the adoption of an entirely new paradigm for information sharing. Current information collection and dissemination practices have not been planned as part of a unified national strategy but rather have evolved incrementally over time to meet certain needs or address specific challenges as they have surfaced. While sharing does occur through these stovepiped efforts, it is commensurately limited in degree and effectiveness. A tremendous quantity of information that could be shared is still not effectively shared and utilized among the various law enforcement communities."
Television and movies portray intelligence, whether for policing or national security, as sophisticated and technologically elaborate, but those in the trenches know that the fragmentation of information and the lack of understanding by managers and policy-makers stand in the way of a real integration of the existing tools and information that could help us become excellent problem solvers. Unfortunately, it took the events of 9-11 to shine a public awareness light on the shortfalls of our current systems.
Next week I will be posting some information on possible changes to the status quo. Have a great weekend!
Read:
Overcoming Information Sharing Obstacles and Complexity by Jüris Kelley, President, Knowledge in Motion LLC, and Diana Abrials, Writer-Editor, Office of Training and Professional Development, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Washington, from The Police Chief, vol. 70, no. 11, November 2003.
Sharing Law Enforcement and Intelligence Information: The Congressional Role by Richard A. Best Jr.. a CRS Report for Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment