Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo
August 11, 2003 Vol. 4 No. 16:   


Published: 08/11/2003

Printable Version
Email to a Friend

Read OMB Watch's detailed analysis of the Sensitive But Unclassified provisions.


Executive Order Assigns Information Sharing Development to DHS

The President issued an Executive Order July 29 that gives Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Tom Ridge authority to develop the information sharing functions under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Section 892 of the Act gives the President authority for determining how homeland security information will be identified and shared. The Act calls for procedures that “share relevant and appropriate homeland security information with other Federal agencies, including the Department, and appropriate State and local personnel” and “identify and safeguard homeland security information that is sensitive but unclassified.” The President has now delegated the responsibility for developing these procedures to Ridge.

The information sharing provisions under the Homeland Security Act could result in information being hidden with little or no review or justification. The Act provides no definitions for exactly what kinds of information would fall under this classification, allowing for massive amounts of unclassified information, currently available for public scrutiny, to be drawn into this new category and withheld. OMB Watch has developed a detailed analysis of the provisions.

It is unclear how these provisions will be developed and if any public input or congressional oversight will be incorporated. DHS has already established a mixed track record. It called for public comments on its proposed Critical Infrastructure Information (CII) rule but has shown great reluctance to allow public access to those comments.