Today more than ever before, it’s all about information. But, it turns out that Sneakers script writers only scratched the surface.
For years, the Defense department took a “do it alone” posture when it came to sharing information and protecting its networks and communication infrastructures from security attacks. Now in an interconnected world of reduced budgets and ever-increasing security risks, the DOD is fundamentally changing the way it approaches information sharing and cybersecurity.
Providing secure mobile devices to the warfighter-a top DISA priority-could have the potential to completely transform battlefield communications and information sharing.
It's a wide world out there, and U.S. government agencies can use all help available to catch the bad guys. The Army's Biometrics Identity Management Agency is tasked with and has undertaken the job of coordinating biometrics across the Defense Department, patching together the databases of Justice, State and Homeland Security in the endeavor. Are these efforts reaping benefits yet, and can this coordination be achieved seamlessly? Read the full article and share your views.
The ultimate goal is to create an overarching framework that standardized CUI infomation to promote the sharing of data.
"If you imagine Second Life is just a game, you're missing the point."--David Wennergren, Defense Department Chief Information Officer
Experts pondered the implications and challenges for sharing data between military and civilian organizations within the U.S. government.
In "New Document Provides Framework for Interagency Data Sharing," Henry Kenyon describes a newly released document that sets common standards for data security and risk management: the NIST Special Publication 800-37, Revision 1, Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems: A Security Life Cycle Approach (NIST SP-800-37).
"Everybody imagines that everyone wants to share information because somehow it will make things better. That's a huge assumption, and it may not be what you think it is." -- Capt. Timothy Spratto, USN, JCD&E Capabilities Solutions Group lead
What does the United States need to make its efforts in Afghanistan successful? According to Dr. Linton Wells II, the answer is sharing unclassified information.
While the push forward for better collaboration and information-sharing capabilities will require technical advances, the experts at today's NATO workshop in Brussels, Belgium, are struggling with an even bigger challenge than connecting the bits and bytes.
This is my take on the AFCEA, Northcom and George Mason University conference on "Inter-agency, Allied and Coalition Information Sharing," which was covered on SIGNAL Scape last week. No, we still can't connect the dots as well as hoped and never will, but conferees agreed that what matters most is the thoughtful and trusting use that humans could make of what information manages to flow through IT systems, however improperly they may be connected.
The Obama administration can take certain key steps to improve the ability to recognize and deal with national security threats, according to recommendations in "Nation at Risk," a report issued by the The Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Jeff Smith of Arnold & Porter LLP, a steering committee member for the report, presented it yesterday at the AFCEA SOLUTIONS conference on information sharing.
The dramatic culture shift that needs to happen for government agencies to embrace change kept coming up at the SOLUTIONS conference like the refrain of a popular song: agencies must move from an emphasis on risk avoidance to a focus on risk management. Without that shift, the quest to achieve 100 percent risk avoidance is quixotic at best; more realistically, it hampers agencies' ability to share information.
Chris Gunderson of the Naval Postgraduate School posited some interesting ideas during yesterday afternoon's plenary sessions about why everyone keeps hearing the same things about changes that need to be made. Certain things, he suggested, we should just acknowledge and move past.
Command and control (C2) still hasn't evolved with the times, according to an afternoon plenary session at AFCEA SOLUTIONS today. Dr. David S. Alberts, director of research for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, networks and information integration, spoke on the maturity and agility of C2. Alberts explained missions are increasingly complex, with implications on command and control:
Although there has been a great deal of progress in streamlining information sharing among allied forces over the past decade, many impediments remain. As the panelists at this morning's session on the challenges surrounding information sharing in a coalition environment noted, the devil is in the details.
Ongoing exercises at the national level are the key to improving inter-agency homeland security processes, according to panelists at Tuesday morning's Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) panel at AFCEA SOLUTIONS. Such exercises contributed to the successful security implementation at the inauguration in January, said Col. Ken McNeill, ARNG, NGB/J-6.
General Victor E. Renuart Jr., USAF, commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, opened the AFCEA Solutions conference on Inter-Agency, Allied and Coalition Information Sharing with a resounding endorsement of the need for continuing conversation about information sharing. But conversation isn't enough, he continued. "Discussions don't move to real solutions very rapidly. Discussion is wonderful, but action is what we need."
The U.S. Defense Department is developing an information sharing implementation plan based heavily on current need and impending reality. One foundational element of the department’s approach is that everyone agrees on the need to share information, but differences lie in how that goal is to be accomplished. The other factor is that new technologies and capabilities are changing the very nature of information access, and users ignore them at their own risk.