White House Advances Insider Threat Policy

White House Advances Insider Threat Policy

White House Advances Insider Threat Policy

November 26th, 2012 by Steven Aftergood In a memorandum to agency heads last week, President Obama transmitted formal requirements that agencies must meet in order “to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security.”
Along with espionage and acts of violence, the National Insider Threat Policy notably extends to the “unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks.” To combat such unauthorized disclosures, agencies are required to “monitor employee use of classified networks.”
The new standards, which have not been made publicly available, were developed by an interagency Insider Threat Task Force that was established by President Obama in the October 2011 executive order 13587, and they reflect the ongoing tightening of safeguards on classified information in response to the voluminous leaks of the last few years.
But the latest issuance also illustrates the superfluousness (or worse) of current congressional action concerning leaks.  Executive branch agencies do not need Congress to tell them to develop “a comprehensive insider threat program management plan,” as would be required by the Senate version of the pending FY2013 Intelligence Authorization Act (section 509).  Such plans will go forward in any case.
Sen. Ron Wyden has placed a hold on the pending intelligence bill, citing objections to several of the proposed anti-leak provisions contained in Title V of the bill. He said the proposed steps were misguided or counterproductive.
“I am concerned that they will lead to less-informed public debate about national security issues, and also undermine the due process rights of intelligence agency employees, without actually enhancing national security,” he said on November 14.  (See related coverage from FDL, POGO, LAT.)
The most problematic measures in the Senate bill are those intended to restrict contacts between reporters and government officials.
Senator Wyden said that legislative actions to limit the ability of the press to report on classified matters could undermine or cripple the intelligence oversight process.
“I have been on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 12 years now, and I can recall numerous specific instances where I found out about serious government wrongdoing–such as the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, or the CIA’s coercive interrogation program–only as a result of disclosures by the press,” he said.

Wyden Pumps the Brakes on Anti-Leaks Legislation

By SUZIE DERSHOWITZ and ANGELA CANTERBURY
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is holding firm on free speech rights. Last week, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (S. 3454) was “hotlined”—the first step in clearing a bill for unanimous consent in the Senate. Usually, if there are no objections to the hotlined bill within a given amount of time, and leadership agrees, it is passed. But Wyden put the brakes on this legislation due to his concerns about the bill’s so-called anti-leak provisions.
Many of the provisions in Title V of the bill would reduce access to information the public has a right to know, put whistleblowers in jeopardy, and threaten government accountability. Thanks to Wyden’s objection, the Senate was unable to fast-track this far-reaching bill. In June, the Project On Government Oversight and more than 25 of our allies sent a letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees objecting to the bill’s anti-speech provisions, which diminish government transparency and jeopardize whistleblowers’ rights. The letter states:

While we recognize that leaks of appropriately and properly classified information are a serious problem, the American public requires access to some information about government conduct in order to foster an informed and meaningful national discussion, particularly about such issues as the use of drones to kill American citizens and other persons.

POGO and our allies in the government accountability community are currently organizing another letter thanking Senate leadership for delaying action on the bill until these concerns can be fully addressed. Any legislation intended to stop leaks of classified information should be carefully considered through an open process that provides ample opportunity for engaging in debate.

Sen. Ron Wyden

As currently drafted, these so-called anti-leak provisions would impair the news media’s ability to access legitimate sources of information in order to report on critical foreign policy and national security issues. Senator Wyden’s press release stresses that “the bill prohibits most intelligence community officials from speaking with the media on background about unclassified issues, even if they would otherwise be authorized to do so.” This would stifle reporting and keep the public in the dark about critical events. One particularly problematic section of the bill, Section 511, grants the Director of National Intelligence and heads of intelligence agencies sweeping new authority to penalize intelligence community employees and former employees for leaks (including stripping them of their pension benefits). This new authority would be granted without establishing checks for adequate oversight or appellate review. Such a provision could have grave consequences for federal employees’ due process rights and a chilling effect on intelligence community whistleblowers.
These provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act are in part a knee-jerk response to the hysteria in Washington over unauthorized leaks. The Obama Administration has charged more Americans for leaking information to the media under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. In light of this effort to stop the flow of classified information to the media and to send a strong message to government workers, it is important to recognize the elemental distinction between engaging in undercover espionage and blowing the whistle on illegal or unconstitutional government acts. The former is beyond reprehensible, but the latter could strengthen our democracy by keeping the government accountable and the public informed.
These issues are complex, and there will always be inherent tensions between protecting national security information and ensuring the public’s right to know. But due process rights, free speech, and freedom of the press are cornerstones of American democracy worth protecting. We appreciate Senator Wyden’s commitment to these values. We hope others in Congress will likewise object when these democratic foundations are jeopardized in the name of national security—whether in the Intelligence Authorization bill or elsewhere.
Suzie Dershowitz is a public policy fellow for the Project On Government Oversight. Angela Canterbury is the director of public policy for the Project On Government Oversight. Image from Flickr user pirateyjoe.

POGO and Allies Caution Congress on Anti-Leaks Legislation

June 15, 2012

Chair Dianne Feinstein
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
211 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Chair Mike Rogers
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Capitol Visitor Center HVC-304 Washington, DC 20515
Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
211 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Capitol Visitor Center HVC-304 Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Feinstein, Vice-Chair Chambliss, Chair Rogers, and Ranking Member Ruppersberger,
The undersigned organizations, concerned with government openness and accountability, write to urge you to protect the interests of an open government and informed public in any legislation to address the leaks of highly classified information. Congress’ goal of protecting the United States’ legitimate secrets is honorable, but it would be unwise to accelerate the process without due consideration to the range of issues entangled in addressing the leak issue.
The legislation will necessarily touch on a number of delicate issues that merit careful consideration. These issues include the balance between reducing security clearances and rightful disclosure, as well as ensuring that classified systems are not clogged with information that does not need rigorous protections. Additionally, the legislation must protect people who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. Seeking input from the public and experts in the field will help Congress ensure that any legislation intended to stop leaks of classified national security information appropriately addresses the potential ramifications of language to address the unauthorized disclosures of highly classified information.
We understand you intend to attach your legislation to the Fiscal Year (FY) FY 2013 Intelligence Authorization Bill. While we recognize that leaks of appropriately and properly classified information are a serious problem, the American public requires access to some information about government conduct in order to foster an informed and meaningful national discussion, particularly about such issues as the use of drones to kill American citizens and other persons. We ask Congress to address these leaks with the most serious of consideration and widest possible public input. We strongly urge you to not rush such important legislation even if the needed careful consideration is not possible before the FY 2013 Intelligence Authorization bill must be passed.
We thank you for your consideration and urge you to address the leaks of highly classified information with the widest possible public input into any legislation and with the most open process possible.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Article 19
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Brennan Center for Justice
Brown Center for Public Policy
Center for Media and Democracy
The Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
Common Cause
The Constitution Project
Defending Dissent
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Coalition
Federation of American Scientists
Government Accountability Project
iSolon.org
Liberty Coalition
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Freedom of Information Coalition
National Security Archive
National Whistleblowers Center
No More Guantanamos
OpenTheGovernment.org
Project On Government Oversight
Progressive Librarians Guild
Society of American Archivists
Society of Professional Journalists
Sunlight Foundation
Utah Foundation for Open Government
Washington Coalition for Open Government

Posted by Charlene Zechender at 6:00 PM