Last month the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) released a detailed study along with recommendations on how the national security classification and declassification system can be fixed. While many people likely didn’t even realize such a problem existed, let alone how it could be fixed, the authors of A Vision for the Digital Age: Modernization of the U.S. National Security Classification and Declassification System suggested that there is widespread, bipartisan recognition that the government not only classifies too much information, but it also keeps information classified for too long.
It isn’t just that the information is classified, but that it comes at what authors, Trevor W. Morrison, chair, and James E. Baker, acting chair, labeled an exorbitant and unacceptable cost to taxpayers. Moreover, the authors suggested that inadequate declassification also contributes to an overall lack of transparency, possibly diminishing confidence in our entire security classification system.
“When we began work on this project almost four years ago, there was widespread agreement inside and outside Government that the current system was too old, did not fully support national security operations, cost too much, and does not function effectively in the digital environment,” Baker wrote in a blog post, and added, “The recommendations in our report are designed to serve as a blueprint on how to modernize the classification and declassification system.”
Inefficient and Ineffective Processes Require Change
The report to the President bluntly noted, “Transformation will be difficult. When it comes to declassification, the Government is still in the analog age. The current system was created before the United States entered World War II, and it remains entrenched today.” Simply put, the government has put too much emphasis on inefficient and ineffective paper-based processes when it comes to the classification of information. The PIDB suggested that the time is now ripe for taking on a new approach, before the accelerating influx of classified electronic information across the federal government becomes completely unmanageable.
Strategic Policy Change
The PIDB offered several specific concepts and recommendations that could aid in modernizing the declassification of federal government records. This includes designating an executive agent (EA) along with an executive committee that would have the authority and responsibility to design and implement a transformed security classification system.
The national security declassification community would also need to be reorganized into a federated National Declassification System (NDS), which would be operated in a system-of-systems enterprise to streamline and modernize the classification/declassification policies, processes and technologies.
In addition, the PIDB called for empowering the National Declassification Center (NDC) with the authorities and responsibilities to oversee the implementation of the NDS system-of-system enterprise approach for managing classified information across the executive branch, but also work with the originating and equity-owning agencies.
New Buzz Words
To address the changes these policies could utilize new 21st century technology – and the PIDB called upon a plethora of tech industry jargon and buzzwords.
It suggested that the transition to modernize to a digital world could be accomplished with tools and services including Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), machine learning, and cloud storage.
The Morrison and Baker suggested this could be accomplished through efforts to, “Capitalize on the current IT success of emerging and existing information technologies and communications to galvanize the modernization of the classification and declassification system. The President’s Management Agendapromotes and is poised to drive a modernized, multi-generational IT infrastructure change across the Government. These aligned efforts must bridge public-private industry opportunities and work across agencies in coordination with stakeholders, including allies.”
However, it should be noted that this still doesn’t entirely spell out what the buzz words mean or how each could be utilized. Big Data for one isn’t technically anything other than the increasing amount of information that is produced on a daily and ongoing basis, while AI/machine learning at this point are still essentially just a fancy way for the technology world to describe advanced algorithms.
Cloud storage and retrieval is already being used by companies large and small, but it also comes with its own host of problems – including cost, access and notably security. So while technology is crucial, the report didn’t completely address the ways in how it will play a specific role.
An Outside View
While there hasn’t been a government response to the report, Steven Aftergood, who directs the FAS (Federation of American Scientists) Project on Government Secrecy, did offer his response in a blog post on Monday. In it, he noted that the idea of appointing an EA would be diminished by making that individual part of an executive committee on agency leaders. The whole point of creating a “czar-like” EA would be to reduce the friction of the collective decision making, but the executive committee would make that difficult.
Moreover, Aftergood suggested the recommendations of the report would elevate the Archives of the United States, which he pointed out makes little sense. He called out the report for not addressing resources in a concrete way, including how much money should be invested today to develop the recommended technologies.
Finally, Aftergood wrote, “the hardest, most stubborn problem in classification policy has nothing to do with efficiency or productivity. What needs updating and correcting, rather, are the criteria for determining what is properly classified and what must be disclosed.”
Clearly change isn’t easy.
The Public Interest Declassification Board will hold a virtual public meeting on June 5 at 11am to discuss the future of the declassification process.
