Information Sharing: Challenges, Trends, and Opportunities

1. Information Sharing:Challenges, Trends, and Opportunities San Diego, CA November 28-30, 2006

2. The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP)

3. Sharing information in Public Safety • The concept and need is widely accepted, BUT; • Is misunderstood • Has obstacles and oppositions • Data control is an issue (who sees what) • Can have legislative restraints • No longer discipline specific • Information vs intelligence • Funding can be an issue • Most initiatives are regional and within state boundaries

4. Corrections OtherState Systems Courts Probation DA’s Office 911 Center Sheriff/Police Unisys Courts IBM Corrections IBM Courts Corrections Courts Sheriff/Police Sheriff/Police Sheriff/Police Corrections Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Connector Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Database Probation NT Probation Message Hub Middleware software Desktop integration and data exchange powered by JNET Desktop integration and data exchange powered by JNET Probation Central Repository OtherState Systems QUERY SERVICE OtherState Systems OtherState Systems SECURITY SERVICE Central Repository INFORMATION SERVICE DA’s Office DA’s Office NT 911 Center DA’s Office 911 Center 911 Center Information Sharing Methods: Central Repository Point-to-point Message Hub Middleware

5. Information May Need to Be Classified • Information may be: • Incident based • Intelligence • General information • Obtained from private sources(Lexis-Nexis, Choicepoint, city, county, etc.) • The classification of information will determine who can use it and how it can be used • Not all information will be used by all users

6. Making the Jump Across State Lines • A few national/multi-state projects • NCIC • Triple III • Nlets • NSOPW • The greatest misunderstood project by; • The ACLU • The media • The public • BUT not by agencies using it • LEO • N-DEx • ARJIS • CapWIN • RISS • HSIN • EPIC • CISAnet MATRIX

7. MATRIX Lessons Learned: • Strong foundation before transitioning into implementation • Projects are bound by an understanding among participants • Although MATRIX understood its mission and goals, the mission was not formalized and articulated to a wide audience • Leadership is extremely critical in the success • Involve private-sector privacy experts to assist in developing and vetting a privacy policy; • If possible, the privacy policy should be available to the public • Describe information collected and how information is stored • Ensure all other policies and internal controls are consistent with the privacy policy

8. Fusion Centers

9. Fusion Center Guidelines—Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and the Private Sector Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)

10. What Is a Fusion Center? • A collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity

11. Why Is the Fusion Process Important? • Supports an all-source, all-crimes, all-hazards, all-threats approach to intelligence • Blends data from different sources, including law enforcement, public safety, and the private sector • Supports risk-based, information-driven prevention, response, and consequence management programs • Supports intelligence-led policing • Fusion is the overarching process of managing the flowing of information and intelligence across all levels and sectors of government and the private sector

12. Privacy Policy Development Guide • Geared toward the justice practitioner charged with developing or revising an agency’s privacy policy • A practical, hands-on resource providing sensible guidance to develop a privacy policy • This guide is the next logical step forthose justice entities ready to move beyond awareness to actual policy development process • It assists agencies in articulating privacy obligations in a manner that protects the justice agency, the individual, and the public and makes it easier to do what is necessary—share critical justice information

13. National Sex Offender Public Registry

14. The Design: • Distributed model • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) • Web Services • US DOJ XML • National search engine, local control The Results: • Connected 22 sites in 60 days • Connected additional 28 sites in 5 months • Over 27 million hits in first 48 hours • Peeked at 977 hits per second • After 63 weeks – over 611 million hits

15. Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website Search sent to server Search sent to states’ repositories Citizen enters data Internet Citizen selects name to view data NSOPR Web Server Search results back to server Server delivers results to web page

16. Current status 50 States + District of Columbia + Guam

17. Best practices: • Identify the stakeholders • Leverage work already completed • Cleary identify the policy decision maker • Cleary identify the technical lead • Adapt to what already exists Lessons learned: • Keep policy and technology separate • Be open to suggestions from stakeholders • Realize “there is no one solution” • Design tool based on abilities • Federal and state can work together

18. Thank you David P. LewisSenior Policy AdvisorJustice Information SharingDOJ/OJP/BJA david.p.lewis@usdoj.gov 202-616-7829