As the U.S. government tweaks its computer networks to fight terrorism, one thing is clear: Wrangling in the intelligence community about how to share vital data has yet to die down even nearly 18 months after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Industry and government security gurus who gathered Wednesday in Washington for the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association's Homeland Security Conference said the resistance stems more from culture than technology.
"We have the technology," said William Dawson, chief information officer at the CIA's Department of Intelligence Communications. "But we don't have the processes yet. That's what we need to work on."
Part of the problem is that the two leading U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA and the FBI -- are naturally prone to limiting access to intelligence, not to sharing it, and for obvious reasons.
"Have any of you ever heard of Robert Hansen?" asked John Pistole, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, in reference to the FBI agent convicted in 2001 of spying for Russia. Pistole said it's because of such espionage risks that agencies avoid sharing data even within their own ranks, not to mention with other agencies.
"FBI agents are trained to collect information, but not to be the Federal Bureau of Information," he said.
John Gannon, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council and former member of the Homeland Security Department transition team, said that even if all of the government's networks could seamlessly share intelligence and filter it to the right people (which they can't yet), agencies would still resist using it.
"I can tell you the lights are not going to go on," Gannon said. "This is very hard for the intelligence community to do."
Also standing in the way are the "vastly different cultures" among various federal agencies, said Larry Castro, the coordinator for homeland security support at the National Security Agency. The challenge is devising data-sharing techniques with network protocols that protect intelligence sources and methods -- an often delicate and difficult feat.
Pistole noted that the FBI recently brought in 25 CIA analysts to help train its agents in intelligence-gathering techniques.
Sharing can become even harder when it involves state and local officials, who can only get threat updates through the Homeland Security Department, and have argued that they need more precise data to effectively protect their communities against threats.
"We've had a couple of states call us directly and ask for information," said the CIA's Dawson. "We said no."
The problem, said Gannon, is that state and local officials assume the federal government is holding out on the details when, in fact, there are usually few specifics to pass along.
"Welcome to the world of intelligence," he said, noting that the federal government is currently developing a direct intranet link to better inform state officials.
In any event, experts said improved technology infrastructures could help save lives in the crucial first few hours after a terrorist attack because they would help first responders get up-to-date information quickly.
"The information sharing is a crucial element to this whole business," said John Parker, senior vice president of the Enterprise and Health Solutions sector of Science Applications International.
Parker noted that because no two events are the same, responders likely won't be able to rely only on rehearsed response efforts. Rather, they will need to contact experts immediately and get answers back in real time. "The use of IT ... is terribly important to have that two-way speed," he said.
In addition, linking biological sensors and other surveillance equipment to computer networks could help monitor patterns to detect a biological attack more quickly, said Peggy Hamburg, vice president for biological programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
