Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
8Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fusion Centers - Intelligence

Fusion Centers - Intelligence

Ratings: (0)|Views: 178 |Likes:
Published by Impello_Tyrannis
9/11 provided the primary catalyst for the formal establishment of more than 40
state, local, and regional fusion centers across the country.
The value proposition for fusion centers is that by integrating various streams
of information and intelligence, including that flowing from the federal government,
state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, a more accurate
picture of risks to people, economic infrastructure, and communities can be
developed and translated into protective action. The ultimate goal of fusion is to
prevent manmade (terrorist) attacks and to respond to natural disasters and manmade
threats quickly and efficiently should they occur. As recipients of federal
government-provided national intelligence, another goal of fusion centers is to model
how events inimical to U.S. interests overseas may be manifested in their
communities, and align protective resources accordingly. There are several risks to
the fusion center concept — including potential privacy and civil liberties violations,
and the possible inability of fusion centers to demonstrate utility in the absence of
future terrorist attacks, particularly during periods of relative state fiscal austerity.
9/11 provided the primary catalyst for the formal establishment of more than 40
state, local, and regional fusion centers across the country.
The value proposition for fusion centers is that by integrating various streams
of information and intelligence, including that flowing from the federal government,
state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, a more accurate
picture of risks to people, economic infrastructure, and communities can be
developed and translated into protective action. The ultimate goal of fusion is to
prevent manmade (terrorist) attacks and to respond to natural disasters and manmade
threats quickly and efficiently should they occur. As recipients of federal
government-provided national intelligence, another goal of fusion centers is to model
how events inimical to U.S. interests overseas may be manifested in their
communities, and align protective resources accordingly. There are several risks to
the fusion center concept — including potential privacy and civil liberties violations,
and the possible inability of fusion centers to demonstrate utility in the absence of
future terrorist attacks, particularly during periods of relative state fiscal austerity.

More info:

Published by: Impello_Tyrannis on Feb 04, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress
Updated January 18, 2008
John RollinsSpecialist in Terrorism and International CrimeForeign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
 
Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress
Summary
Although elements of the information and intelligence fusion function wereconducted prior to 9/11, often at state police criminal intelligence bureaus, the eventsof 9/11 provided the primary catalyst for the formal establishment of more than 40state, local, and regional fusion centers across the country.The value proposition for fusion centers is that by integrating various streamsof information and intelligence, including that flowing from the federal government,state, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, a more accuratepicture of risks to people, economic infrastructure, and communities can bedeveloped and translated into protective action. The ultimate goal of fusion is toprevent manmade (terrorist) attacks and to respond to natural disasters and manmadethreats quickly and efficiently should they occur. As recipients of federalgovernment-provided national intelligence, another goal of fusion centers is to modelhow events inimical to U.S. interests overseas may be manifested in theircommunities, and align protective resources accordingly. There are several risks tothe fusion center concept — including potential privacy and civil liberties violations,and the possible inability of fusion centers to demonstrate utility in the absence of future terrorist attacks, particularly during periods of relative state fiscal austerity.Fusion centers are state-created entities largely financed and staffed by thestates, and there is no one “model” for how a center should be structured. State andlocal law enforcement and criminal intelligence seem to be at the core of many of thecenters. Although many of the centers initially had purely counterterrorism goals, fornumerous reasons, they have increasingly gravitated toward an all-crimes and evenbroader all-hazards approach. While many of the centers have prevention of attacksas a high priority, little “true fusion,” or analysis of disparate data sources,identification of intelligence gaps, and pro-active collection of intelligence againstthose gaps which could contribute to prevention is occurring. Some centers arecollocated with local offices of federal entities, yet in the absence of a functioningintelligence cycle process, collocation alone does not constitute fusion.The federal role in supporting fusion centers consists largely of providingfinancial assistance, the majority of which has flowed through the Homeland SecurityGrant Program; sponsoring security clearances; providing human resources;producing some fusion center guidance and training; and providing congressionalauthorization and appropriation of national foreign intelligence program resources,as well as oversight hearings. This report includes over 30 options for congressionalconsideration to clarify and potentially enhance the federal government’s relationshipwith fusion centers. One of the central options is the potential drafting of a formalnational fusion center strategy that would outline, among other elements, the federalgovernment’s clear expectations of fusion centers, its position on sustainmentfunding, metrics for assessing fusion center performance, and definition of whatconstitutes a “mature” fusion center. This report will be updated.
 
Contents
Introduction......................................................1Fusion Center Value Proposition .................................3DHSs Value Proposition....................................4Importance of Intelligence and Intelligence Sharing...............5Importance of Fusion, Including Non-Traditional Intelligence/ Information..........................................5Unique Role of State, Local and Tribal (SLT) Public Sector........7Benefits of Fusion Being a Team Function......................9Potential Risks to Fusion Centers.....................................9Potential Risk Underlying Philosophy......................10Potential Risk — Civil Liberties Concerns or Violations ..........10Potential Risk Time....................................14Potential Risk Funding..................................14Evolution of Fusion Center Concept..................................15Intelligence-Led Policing and Other Policing Models.................15HIDTA.....................................................16Grassroots Support — Governors and Homeland Security Advisors.....17Shift in Homeland Defense and Security Responsibility ..............18Characteristics of State/Regional Fusion Centers........................18Ownership/Stewardship .......................................19Legal Authority ..............................................20Multiple Fusion Centers........................................20Mission/Scope ..............................................21All-Crimes..............................................22All-Hazards.............................................22Operational v. Analytical.......................................23Prevention and/or Response ....................................24Prevention..............................................24Response...............................................24Proactive v. Reactive..........................................25Access to Information/Intelligence...............................25Clearances..............................................26Classified Systems Access..................................27Responsibility to Share Replaces Need to Know.................28Information/Intelligence Sharing and Management ..................29State/Locally-Administered Systems..........................29Access to Private Sector Systems............................29Lack of Interoperability of Systems...........................30Plethora of Federally-Sponsored Systems......................30Classified Systems........................................30Over-classification and Excessive Number of Security/ Handling Instructions..................................31Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)............................31Over-classification........................................32

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
takashiro liked this
jrkumar liked this
Sherry Johnson liked this
banben liked this
valericaputamica liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->