Secrecy vs. Security

Federal agencies like the CIA and FBI vigilantly guarded their secrets during the Cold War, in part fearing one another’s leakers and moles. But sometimes information is just a source of power, as were J. Edgar Hoover’s vast files on the personal habits of elected officials. Internal secrecy still exists in Washington, and it is sabotaging the mission of the Homeland Security Department.

That’s the scary warning in a report from the Markle Foundation. The blue-chip group that produced the study included, in addition to privacy experts, Wesley K. Clark, the Democratic presidential candidate and retired general; former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton; and Morton H. Halperin, a former Clinton administration official.

This isn’t the first indication that the department, a mammoth post-9/11 melding of several government agencies, is more bureaucratic shuffler than effective response to global perils. The General Accounting Office stated in August that poor coordination of information by various levels of government could cause vital clues of an impending attack to be overlooked. It found that information was not reaching states and cities as it should. The emphasis, the GAO said, is on supplying information to senior federal officials -- the people who control the purse strings and promotions.

A 50-state study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in September added another piece to the puzzle, asserting that 90% of cities had not obtained promised federal funds to assist police, local officials and other first responders. State and local law enforcement agencies are the first that must learn of an impending attack, whether it be a truck bomb or a cyber plot. In turn, they need a fast, effective way to send warnings up the chain -- and have them taken seriously.

One example of problems below the federal level: A state’s investigators often have difficulty getting access to other states’ driver’s license records.

The federal government’s obsession with classifying even innocuous materials also stymies local officials. The GAO says that with sufficient training, state and local officials, who daily handle confidential information on crimes, “could handle other categories of sensitive information.” Individual privacy doesn’t have to be at risk if the rules are clear. The Markle report, for instance, says the government should not be able to use health records or credit data unless it can show a strong link to a threat.

No matter how much information the feds collect, it’s little help if it’s not shared. The clues to preventing a new attack are as likely to come from a vigilant cop on the beat as from a CIA agent.