That’s classified!

Washington Post: Knowledge is power. But in government, if knowledge isn’t shared between agencies and with others to whom the information could be vital, the consequences can be — and have been — deadly. The Sept. 11 commission report cited a lack of information-sharing as a contributing factor to the horrific events of that day in 2001. Nearly seven years later, the commission’s recommendation for the creation of a “trusted information network” is finally getting some traction, with significant steps taken by the White House and comparable moves in Congress.

The problem centers on what is known as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU) information. There are no rules for what can or must be given that designation. As a result, different agencies have different standards for when to keep material within their walls.

Standard framework

Former ambassador Ted McNamara, who was directed by President Bush last year to come up with recommendations for creating a standard SBU framework, said in testimony before Congress that a survey of 20 departments and agencies found 107 “unique markings” and more than 131 labeling or handling processes and procedures for SBU information. This has led to the reclassification of some archived records that had been public for years.

Even more disturbing, the barriers prevent information from flowing to state and local law enforcement agencies. That’s untenable in a post-Sept. 11 world.

Mr. McNamara proposed a “controlled unclassified information” (CUI) system that would institute a single standard for all agencies. On May 7, Mr. Bush issued the long-awaited framework establishing three CUI categories and giving the National Archives five years to create and implement policies. Meanwhile, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., shepherded two bills through her subcommittee on intelligence, information sharing and terrorism risk assessment that would reduce the overclassification of records and codify the CUI for the Department of Homeland Security.