Slow to Share

Despite a two-year push by the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks to better share information about terrorist threats, agencies have improved only slightly in sharing data with key officials at the national, state and local levels, according to a group of experts on national security and technology.

In its second report on how better information sharing might prevent future terrorist attacks, the Markle Foundation last week asserted that the government has been slow to establish new information sharing networks, and that the effort "is not guided by an overall vision of how information should be shared and analyzed in keeping with adequate guidelines to protect privacy and other civil liberties." In its first report, released in Oct. 2002, the group said that creating a governmentwide shared data network was "the most urgent task facing government in protecting the homeland."

The Markle Foundation is helmed by Zoe Baird, an attorney formerly with the Justice Department and President Clinton's first nominee for attorney general in 1992. The group is staffed by a number of experts on counterterrorism, technology and information sharing.

The report's authors issued a direct appeal to President Bush, calling on him to set a goal of creating a secure information sharing network. They also said Bush should issue "clear governmentwide policy guidelines" for the collection and use of citizens' personal data, including information about them held by U.S. corporations. Finally, the report said Bush should clarify the counterterrorism roles of the Homeland Security Department, the FBI and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a multi-agency organization that is managed by the CIA. Critics have complained for some time that several government agencies are duplicating each other's roles in the domestic counterterror campaign. The Markle report will likely resonate among those who believe the Bush administration hasn't taken information sharing seriously enough, and it is already inspiring public debate. On Thursday, the conservative Heritage Foundation and the nonpartisan Potomac Institute for Policy Studies will host a critique of the Markle report, and will present analysis from the groups' staffs as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.

Companies Feel Networks are Safer While corporate information security experts believe their companies are at risk for a major cyber attack, the vast majority of them say they are prepared to defend against electronic intruders, and they want their message heard by federal officials.

According to a survey released by software and information security trade groups last week, 65 percent of security professionals think their organizations are vulnerable to attack. But 78 percent say their companies are ready for the challenge, and 82 percent of large companies claim they are more secure now than in the past.

The report's release was well-timed by the industry. Paid for by the Business Software Alliance and the Information Systems Security Association, it was unveiled at a national cybersecurity conference last week in Santa Clara, Calif., co-hosted by technology firms and the Homeland Security Department. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was in attendance, as were Bob Liscouski, assistant secretary for infrastructure protection and Amit Yoran, cybersecurity division director.

A senior executive with the Information Systems Security Association stressed the progress companies had made toward improving security. That was a significant claim, because Homeland Security and law enforcement officials have said it's incumbent upon private firms to better protect their networks, since they control or connect to the majority of critical infrastructures in the United States, such as dams, nuclear facilities and electrical power generators.

For their part, Homeland Security officials sought to downplay criticism that they were working too closely with the industry to craft new security rules, which might require companies to meet certain minimum standards. Yoran told reporters that companies were receiving no preferential treatment, and that the government wasn't acting solely on the concerns of special interest groups, such as those that commissioned the survey.

A full copy of the survey is available online. It was prepared by an independent pollster and has a margin of error of 2.4 percent.

Stocks on the Rise

It's said that a rising tide floats all boats. That axiom appears to be holding true in the federal technology market, where bigger revenues and profits are paying dividends for publicly traded federal technology contractors, according to a report by a research firm released last week.

Valuation of those companies stocks has increased 17 percent in the last six months, according to Reston-Va. based Input, which provides government market analysis for technology companies. Input studied the revenue and net income figures of 17 companies to come up with an overall stock value rating.

Based on the analysis, it appears at first glance that federal tech firms are outperforming the commercial market, David Heinemann, an Input executive, said in a statement. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index has increased 11 percent since the end of May.

However, the technology component of the S&P 500 went up 24 percent during the same period, Heinemann said. That indicates that values in the government technology market have not been increasing as fast as the technology sector overall, he explained, even though the firms Input studied are doing very well.

Nevertheless, Heinemann was bullish on the federal market. Input's rivals, who also cater mostly to government contractor clients, have pointed to the recent uptick in technology spending as well as the increased pace of mergers and acquisitions as signals that the federal market is growing.