The overall mission of the fusion center is to implement and use technologies that are not only top-notch in intelligence gathering and dissemination but also privacy-conscious pertinent to the Privacy Act of 1974. Coupling the above mission of the fusion center is the mandate to efficiently and effectively share information and intelligence, capitalize on resources, restructure operations, and develop the baseline capabilities of fighting terrorism and crime through data analysis from multiple sources. Moreover, the fusion center is also mandated with developing mechanisms of exchanging information and intelligence that do not violate user privacy.
As such, the influence of the policies and practices on the mission and mandate of the fusion center comes from the need to comply with the policies as an ethical and legal obligation of the fusion center. According to DHS (2010), ethical and legal obligations oblige fusion center staffs, accredited users, and involved agencies to safeguard constitutional rights that include privacy and other civil liberties throughout the information exchange process. The fusion center is not only expected to comply and adhere to information sharing but also intelligence gathering. Another influence of the policies on the mission of the fusion center is through the information sharing environment guideline (ISE) stipulated in section 12.d of the privacy protection policy, (Harper, 2009). This guideline contains policies, practices, and technologies linking the resources (individuals, databases, systems, and information) of state, local, tribal, and federal agencies to foster information sharing, collaboration, and access.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Harper (2009), the policies and practices affect the time which fusion centers take to achieve baseline capabilities because they have to meet different standards of the policy based on their operational perspective within various settings; crimes, hazards, counterterrorism, or a combination of two or more.
Privacy Protection
Fusion centers came to existence after the 9/11 attack that left the nation in sixes and sevens due to lack of coordination and competent information sharing. In essence, it is prudent to say that the officials both at the state and federal level were reacting blindly to attacks that were well coordinated and planned, a concept that was lacking in the US intelligence agencies at the time. Notably, fusion centers do bolster public safety because they bridge the gap of information sharing between the different levels of the government and law enforcement agencies but the privacy of the centers has long been debated. Indeed, the centers are aware of the ethical issues and are constantly in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974. The act specifies a code of fair information practices that ensure that gathering, utilization, and distribution of information by federal agencies is ethical. Besides, the Privacy Act proscribes the leakage of information regarding a person from a system of records without the approval of the person except if the release is under one of the 12 statutory exceptions (Winn & Harman-Stokes, 2015).
As such, it is mandatory for the fusion centers to adhere to the Privacy Act and protect the privacy of individuals relative to the U.S. privacy laws. However, the controversy is in how effectively the centers and policies are in protecting individual’s privacy. For instance, a fusion center can be used to gather information on a suspect and use that information to stop a domestic terrorist attack. On the other hand, the same fusion center can be used by huge corporations to filter through the database to screen potential employees, which is unethical and violates privacy. Nonetheless, the fusion center and the pertinent policies are under constant confinement of combination of state and federal laws regarding only the collection of information but also handling and sharing. Aware of the privacy challenge, privacy policies of the center ensure that the center does not hold on to a single piece of information for too long.
Moreover, the centers do not unnecessarily gather information or intelligence on individuals randomly without cause. For instance, the fusion center like all others follows a federal regulatory code 28 CFR Part 23, which is regarded as the legal standard of information gathering (IUPUI, 2016). The code maintains that the center has to establish a probable cause to gather and retain information on suspected persons. Further actions taken by the fusion center includes policies that offer checks and balances such as review boards and advisory councils to safeguard the privacy of individuals. Besides, the center subjects itself to the review boards and advisory councils as part of its policy of adhering to legal guidelines, especially when the center engages with a non-law enforcement agency.
Assessment of Policy Implementation Process
The current policy implementation process at the center is efficacious and legal in all legal criteria. However, due to the delicate nature of citizen privacy and the guidelines therein, the current implementation process is slow. Nonetheless, despite the pace, the center believes in nurturing an information exchange milieu while preserving the confidentiality of individuals. In addition, the center has been professional in handling non-law enforcement entities such as business corporations and private businesses thereby avoiding any cases of information leakage or privacy violation. This phenomenon demonstrates that the current implementation process is on point from both the center’s mission and the legal perspectives. Also, in the implementation process, the center has liaised with the local, state, and federal governments to ensure adherence with the US laws.
Nonetheless, the process and system are failing in one perspective; accountability. Even though the fusion center has been able to avoid cases of privacy violations and leakages, there are no stipulated policies or regulations of ensuring that the information disseminated especially to the private businesses will be used ethically. In essence, the fusion center policies only safeguard information available in its systems and databases but do not follow up on privacy implications once the information has been disseminated. As such, in improving this process, the center will vet all its partnering agencies and organizations that will be required to sign a controlling privacy policy document to ensure ethical use of the information, which would otherwise lead to litigation and prosecution.
References
DHS. (2010). Fusion center privacy policy development. Retrieved from https://it.ojp.gov/documents/d/Fusion_Center_Privacy_Policy_Development_508compliant.pdf
Harper, J. L. (2009). Fusion center privacy policies: does one size fit all . NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a514180.pdf
IUPUI. (2016). Study: Violations of privacy rights by fusion centers are the exception, not the rule. Retrieved from http://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/07/fusion-centers-privacy-concerns-carter.shtml
Winn, P.A. & Harman-Stokes, K. (2015). Privacy Act of 1974. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974
