*Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative*

**Global Intelligence Working Group**

**Meeting Summary**

Washington, DC

April 1-2, 2004

Chairman Richard Stanek opened the meeting by welcoming the members and
introducing guests. The following individuals were in attendance during
the meeting:

> Mr. Al Arena
>
> *International Association of Chiefs\
> of Police*
>
> Ms. Maureen Baginski
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Carlos Barron
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Chief Bill Berger
>
> *North Miami Beach, Florida, Police\
> Department*
>
> Ms. Judith Bertini
>
> *U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration*
>
> Mr. Doug Bodrero
>
> *Institute for Intergovernmental\
> Research*
>
> Ms. Cheryl Bowers
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Donald Brackman
>
> *National White Collar Crime Center*
>
> Mr. Ron Brooks
>
> *Northern California HIDTA*
>
> Mr. Alan Carlson
>
> *The Justice Management Institute*
>
> Superintendent Melvin J. Carraway
>
> *Indiana State Police*
>
> Mr. Bob Casey
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Bob Cummings
>
> *Institute for Intergovernmental\
> Research*
>
> Mr. Bruce Edwards
>
> *Bureau of Justice Assistance*
>
> Mr. Max Fratoddi
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Thomas Frazier
>
> *Major Cities Chiefs Association*
>
> Chief Karen Gardner
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Colonel Dennis A. Garrett
>
> *Arizona Department of Public Safety*
>
> Mr. Ron Hawley
>
> *SEARCH, The National Consortium\
> for Justice Information and Statistics*

Mr. Joe Heaps

*National Institute of Justice*

Mr. Steve J. Hooks, Jr.

*Federal Bureau of Investigation*

Colonel Bart Johnson

*New York State Police*

Ms. Michelle Jupina

*Federal Bureau of Investigation*

Mr. Vernon Keenan

*Georgia Bureau of Investigations*

Mr. David H. Lodge

*Counterdrug Intelligence Executive\
Secretariat -- CDX*

Mr. William Lueckenhoff

*Federal Bureau of Investigation*

Gerard P. Lynch, Esquire

*MAGLOCLEN*

Mr. George March

*Regional Information Sharing Systems™*

Mr. Ritchie A. Martinez

*Arizona Department of Public\
Safety/HIDTA*

Mr. Jerry Marynik

*California Department of Justice*

Mr. Kent Mawyer

*Texas Department of Public Safety*

Mr. M. Miles Matthews

*RISSNET*

Mr. Patrick McCreary

*Bureau of Justice Assistance*

Mr. Pete Modafferi

*Rockland County, New York, District\
Attorney's Office*

John Morgan, Ph.D.

*U.S. Department of Justice*

Mr. Dennis Morton

*National Drug Intelligence Center*

Ms. Michelle Nickens

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research*

Chief Daniel J. Oates

*Ann Arbor, Michigan, Police Department*

Chief Tom O'Connor

*Maryland Heights, Missouri, Police\
Department*

> Ms. Lisa Palmieri
>
> *Insurance Fraud Bureau of\
> Massachusetts*
>
> Ms. Marilyn B. Peterson
>
> *New Jersey Division of Criminal\
> Justice*
>
> Mr. Doug Poole
>
> *U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration*
>
> Mr. Russ Porter
>
> *Iowa Department of Public Safety*
>
> Ms. Diane Ragans
>
> *Institute for Intergovernmental\
> Research*
>
> Mr. Steve Raubenolt
>
> *Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway*
>
> Mr. Diego Rodriguez
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Ms. MaryLou Rogers
>
> *National Drug Intelligence Center*

Mr. Ben Sasse

*U.S. Department of Justice*

Mr. Michael D. Schrunk

*Multnomah County District Attorney's\
Office*

Mr. Thomas Seamon

*International Association of Chiefs of\
Police*

Mr. Clark Smith

*U.S. Department of Justice*

Commissioner Richard W. Stanek

*Minnesota Department of Public Safety*

Mr. Dick Ward

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research*

Mr. Emory B. Williams

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research*

Chief Mark Zadra

*Florida Department of Law Enforcement*

Chairman Stanek provided an overview of the meeting schedule, agenda,
and logistics. He informed the members that the December 11, 2003, and
March 3, 2004, GIWG Executive Steering Committee (GIWG-ESC) meeting
summaries were contained in their materials. Chairman Stanek asked for a
motion to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved as presented.
Chairman Stanek asked for volunteers to help him represent the GIWG at
upcoming speaking engagements, specifically, the National Criminal
Justice Association (NCJA).

He also reviewed the progress made by the GIWG of the *National Criminal
Intelligence Sharing Plan* (NCISP or "Plan"). He explained that the GIWG
focus for the next year should be directed toward creating Version 2.0
of the Plan. In addition, he charged the group to focus on the following
issues:

-   Develop recommendations involving the private sector.

-   Consider and identify best practices.

-   Identify innovative ways to communicate the tenets of the Plan to
    law enforcement.

-   Continue to refine training standards and objectives.

-   Continue efforts for a national capability that will ensure law
    enforcement can effectively communicate and share intelligence in a
    secure manner.

-   Identify tools that can be used by analysts and investigators.

-   Develop a privacy policy that agencies could adopt or insert into
    existing policies.

-   Identify ways to measure how effective this effort has been and how
    we can improve it for the future.

Chairman Stanek also announced that a national signing event has been
tentatively scheduled for May 13, 2004, in the Washington, DC, area. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has taken the lead
in organizing this event with the support of the Office of Justice
Programs (OJP). Updates regarding the event will be provided to the
membership.

Chairman Stanek reminded the participants that the NCISP called for the
creation of a Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC). He
reviewed the proposed organizational structure and requested a motion to
approve the recommendation.\
Chief Daniel Oates made a motion to accept the CICC structure; Mr.
Vernon Keenan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Stanek
also informed the members that Mr. Russ Porter and Mr. Pete Modafferi
would serve as the GIWG liaisons to the Justice Intelligence
Coordinating Council (JICC).

A discussion ensued regarding the new Committee structure. The GIWG-ESC
reviewed the GIWG membership and recommended consolidation of the Policy
and Standards Committees and the Training and Outreach Committees,
resulting in only four GIWG Committees. Chairman Stanek advised the
participants that due to a directive by the OJP, the Global Working
Groups have been downsized. As a result, the GIWG-ESC designated
existing participants as GIWG members or advisors. He explained that for
those individuals designated as advisors, reimbursements for travel will
only be provided for attendance at Committee meetings.

> Chairman Stanek reviewed the results of the NCISP assessment. The
> assessment revealed that 71 percent of the respondents were familiar
> with the NCISP.\
> Chairman Stanek asked that each Committee consider these results in
> their discussions during their Committee meetings on April 2.

Mr. Melvin Carraway provided the participants with an update on the
Global Initiative and mentioned some of the issues under development.
The Global Privacy and Information Quality Working Group (GPIQWG) is
developing the *Privacy Policy for the Justice Decision Maker* and the
*Privacy Sourcebook*. The Global Infrastructure/\
Standards Working Group (GISWG) is preparing for a Developer's Workshop
scheduled for May 11-13, 2004, in Atlanta, Georgia. The Global Security
Working Group is focusing on a number of security issues, the Systems
Security Compatibility Task Force, and updating a Security Practices
tool (CD-ROM).

Mr. Carraway reminded the participants that these efforts, including the
GIWG, bring various individuals and organizations together to share
criminal intelligence across the country. He added that many agencies do
not have the resources to start an intelligence function and that Global
can be a conduit to help these agencies. He commended the group for
their excellent work but also stressed that continued commitment,
patience, and perseverance are needed.

Dr. John Morgan reiterated the efforts regarding the national signing
event and discussed new technology, the Community-Oriented Policing
Service (COPS) program demonstration, and the need for continued
education about the NCISP and Global. He discussed the need to implement
solid information sharing projects. Dr. Morgan stressed the necessity
for continued communications among all levels of law enforcement and
challenged the members to develop innovative methods to increase
information sharing.

**Presentations**

Presentations from a variety of entities were planned for the day. The
purpose of these presentations was to gauge how the NCISP has been
implemented. The following is a summary of each presentation:

*[Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Houston Field Intelligence Group
(FIG)]{.underline}*

Mr. Carlos Barron and Ms. Cheryl Bowers provided an overview of the
Houston FIG and an example of how operations functioned during Super
Bowl XXXVIII. The goal was to provide a one-stop shopping process
through the use of an Information Data Warehouse (IDW). The long-term
results included enhanced communications and information sharing between
the participating agencies. Mr. Barron and Ms. Bowers also provided a
review of the Counter Terrorism Intelligence Group (CTIG). CTIG is an
intelligence component of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), created
in July 2002 by FBI Houston. (See *Attachment A*.)

*[Justice Intelligence Coordinating Council (JICC)]{.underline}*

Ms. Maureen Baginski, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI
Intelligence Office, praised the Houston FIG and stated that its
operation is a model for the intelligence community. Ms. Baginski
provided an overview of the JICC, which closely parallels the structure
of the CICC. She explained that the purpose of the JICC is to provide a
senior-level coordinating mechanism for the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) for all intelligence activities conducted by the DOJ and its
subordinate organizations. (See *Attachment B*.)

*[FBI Web-Based Training Component on Intelligence-Led
Policing]{.underline}*

Chief Karen Gardner, from the FBI Academy, and Mr. Jeff Snipe, from
Ninth House, provided an overview of Ninth House services and the new
technology impacting Web-based training. Mr. Modafferi explained that
Ninth House was requested to present the different interactive training
capabilities that are available for law enforcement at the FBI Academy.

*[Regional Information Sharing Systems™ (RISS) Strategic Planning
Process]{.underline}*

Mr. Gerard Lynch, chair of the RISS Board of Directors, reported on the
steps the RISS Program is taking to incorporate the NCISP components
into the RISS strategic plan and increase information sharing. The RISS
directors met, discussed all the recommendations, and developed an
action plan. Mr. Barron requested clarification of the Anti-Terrorism
Information Exchange (ATIX). Mr. Lynch explained ATIX\
and advised the network is available to both the public and private
sector. (See *Attachment C*.)

*[National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC)]{.underline}*

Ms. MaryLou Rodgers, NDIC Chief of Staff, provided an overview of the
Document Exploitation Program and its basic methodology, as well as its
advanced capability. To illustrate the progress NDIC has made, she
presented Operation Mountain Express as an example. In addition, Ms.
Rodgers discussed Enterprise Repository and the Cross Case Analysis
Tool. (See *Attachment D*.)

*[Criminal Intelligence Training Coordination Strategy (CITCS) Working
Group]{.underline}*

Mr. Doug Bodrero provided an overview of the Criminal Intelligence
Training Coordination Strategy (CITCS) working group. The CITCS is in
the process of developing minimum training standards for the following
components: Intelligence Analyst, Executives, In-Service/Basic Recruit,
Train-the-Trainer, and Intelligence Managers. Recommendations will be
presented to the Counter-Terrorism Training Coordination Working Group
(CTTWG) and the GIWG for consideration by October 2004. (See *Attachment
E*.)

*[Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (Law Enforcement
N-DEx)]{.underline}*

Mr. Will Lueckenhoff provided the attendees an overview of the Law
Enforcement N-DEx System and explained that the goal of the initiative
is to provide timely, accurate, and relevant information to help solve
crimes by providing a nationally-based automated information sharing
system that is capable of optimal analysis for strategic, operational,
and tactical purposes. He explained the organizational structure,
purpose, and progress of the seven focus groups, as well as the Project
Development Council (PDC). In addition, he described the different
phases of the project and the functionality expected. It is anticipated
that a pilot process will begin in June 2004. (See *Attachment F*.)

*[Law Enforcement Information Sharing (LEIS) Project]{.underline}*

Mr. Clark Smith provided an overview of the LEIS Project. DOJ developed
LEIS to coordinate information sharing activities, coordinate with other
federal agencies, provide a framework for new information technology
(IT) investments, and to identify recommendations for policy changes.
LEIS focuses on three primary components: Policies, Concept of
Operations (CONOPS), and Technical Architecture. (See *Attachment G*.)

*[Rockland County Intelligence Center (RCIC)]{.underline}*

Mr. Modafferi provided a review of the RCIC. He began with a review of
intelligence versus information, intelligence-led policing, strategic
intelligence, tactical intelligence, and operations. The mission of the
RCIC is to provide law enforcement agencies with criminal intelligence
that is based on the collection, evaluation, and analysis of reliable
information and structured data. Mr. Modafferi addressed staffing,
resources, systems, and products. He also referred to the structure of
the National Child Advocacy Group and suggested using this group as a
model for delivery of the NCISP. Colonel Bart Johnson discussed the
correlation of the New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA) program. (See *Attachment H*.)

*[California Department of Justice (DOJ) -- Chief Executive
Training]{.underline}*

Mr. Jerry Marynik presented the California DOJ Chief Executive Training
program to the attendees. In the last five years, over 200 executives
have taken the seminar. The seminar is a 16-hour program; four sessions
are offered annually. Some of the main issues addressed in the seminar
include:

-   The executive role regarding intelligence

-   Accessing available resources

-   Information versus intelligence

-   What's in it for me?

-   Intelligence-led and community-led policing

-   Systems and networks

-   Obstacles

-   Best practices

The attendees agreed that it can be difficult to entice executives to
come to a 16-hour course. Mr. Marynik explained that executives will
attend the training for a variety of reasons, but it appears they
generally fall into the following categories: those interested in
intelligence, those concerned about liability, and those that want to
understand the Patriot Act. The director of the California DOJ is very
supportive of the program and opens each training session by welcoming
the participants.

*[Role of Intelligence Requirements in the Intelligence
Process]{.underline}*

Mr. Bob Casey discussed three main topics in his presentation:
terminology, the intelligence process, and the impact of requirements on
intelligence activities. He provided a comprehensive list of relevant
terms and reviewed the intelligence process. He explained that
intelligence requirements are key to intelligence activities. In order
to illustrate this point, he provided the participants with a number of
examples. Discussion ensued regarding the importance of intelligence
requirements and their impact on a successful intelligence function.
(See *Attachment I*.)

*[Fusion Center Development]{.underline}*

Chairman Stanek discussed the implementation of fusion centers. He
explained that many smaller agencies do not have the resources to
implement intelligence functions, and through state fusion centers,
services can be provided to all levels of law enforcement. He stated
that a survey of homeland security directors indicated that about half
the number of states are in the process of developing a fusion center or
similar structure. He encouraged the participants to consider this
concept for future planning efforts.

After the presentations concluded, Chairman Stanek asked the members if
there was additional business that required attention. Hearing none, he
requested a motion to adjourn. The GIWG adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

**Committee Meeting Summaries**

On April 2, 2004, the four GIWG Committees met from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. and addressed individual agenda items. Summaries of the meetings
are provided below.

> **Outreach/Training Committee Meeting**

Cochairs Chief Tom O'Connor, Maryland Heights, Missouri, Police
Department, and Chief Berger, North Miami Beach, Florida, Police
Department, opened the meeting and briefly discussed the consolidation
of the Outreach and Training Committees. The members agreed that
combining the Committees made sense. The following individuals were in
attendance:

> Mr. Donald J. Brackman
>
> *National White Collar Crime Center*
>
> Mr. Doug Bodrero
>
> *Institute for Intergovernmental\
> Research*
>
> Mr. Bruce Edwards
>
> *Bureau of Justice Assistance*
>
> Mr. David Lodge
>
> *Counterdrug Intelligence Executive\
> Secretariat*
>
> Gerard P. Lynch, Esquire
>
> *MAGLOCLEN*

Mr. Ritchie Martinez

*Arizona Department of Public\
Safety/HIDTA*

Mr. Jerry Marynik

*California Department of Justice*

Ms. Michelle Nickens

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research*

Ms. Gail Thomas

*FBI, Headquarters Office of Intelligence*

Ms. Marilyn B. Peterson

*New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice*

Mr. Thomas Taylor

*Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney*

The members also discussed the presentations from the previous day. They
shared their concerns about the multiple projects being developed
simultaneously. It was mentioned that the competing entities may impact
the ability to implement the NCISP nationwide.

Chief Berger provided an update on outreach efforts and suggested that a
strategy for future outreach be developed. He suggested that a short
training session (hour or hour and a half) be developed for
practitioners. The session would provide an overview of the *National
Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan*, how it can impact an agency's
intelligence function, and steps to implement the Plan. Chief Berger
suggested that after the signing event, a group of practitioners should
be brought together to participate in this session. These individuals
could then take the components back to their respective agencies to
educate others and to implement the Plan.

Discussion ensued regarding how this training would be delivered. It was
suggested that Global Chairman Melvin Carraway or another Global
representative provide an introduction and overview of the initiative
followed by a PowerPoint presentation, including specific information
about the Plan. The group agreed that if a PowerPoint presentation was
developed, it would provide a consistent medium for all to use, while
allowing for flexibility based on the audience. Additional materials,
such as resource guides or CD-ROMs, could be included as well.

The participants also stressed the need to capture and magnify successes
perhaps through newsletters or testimonials. The group discussed
incorporating the media through press releases and specifically
suggested a press release in conjunction with the national signing
event. In addition, it was recommended that a media packet be developed
for Global members to use.

**Action:** IIR will develop a PowerPoint presentation as described
above. IIR will identify participants for this training and provide a
plan to the Committee for consideration.

The group expressed some concern regarding future funding and support.
Members were concerned about having to revalidate the Plan due to
possible changes in administration. It was agreed for the process to
remain nonpartisan. Mr. Bodrero explained that this process will not be
easy. There is no 2005 funding earmarked for Global. Global will
establish the standards, not necessarily deliver the training.\
Mr. Bruce Edwards mentioned that BJA is working on the 2006 funding
issues. Since many agencies do not have the necessary resources, it was
recommended for training to be free.

The group also expressed concern about how local agencies perceive
themselves in the Global picture. They agreed that both the local crime
problem as well as local impact on national security must be addressed.
It is critical that local agencies have a stake in the process and know
what is in it for them. It is also important that the federal agencies
play a part and continue to be committed to the Plan.

Chief O'Connor explained that the success of training will hinge on the
outreach component. Others mentioned that individuals need and want
training; there is not a lack of students but a lack of qualified
teachers. This led to a discussion regarding training standards for the
different training levels. Mr. Bodrero explained that the CITCS Working
Group is in the process of developing minimum training standards. If a
course does not meet the minimum standards, it may still be conducted.
If a program seeks an endorsement, however, they must meet the minimum
standards. He mentioned that the CITCS should complete their task by
October 2004 and will bring recommendations to the Counter-Terrorism
Training Coordination Working Group and Global for consideration and
approval.

The members reviewed and validated the six training levels previously
established by the Training Committee -- Law Enforcement Officer,
Executives, Intelligence Commanders, Intelligence Officers/Collectors,
Intelligence Analysts, and Train-the-Trainer. Suggestions included the
following:

-   Executives -- Conduct a maximum four-hour session and provide a
    CD-ROM; consider delivering training via national association
    meetings.

-   Commanders/Intelligence Officers/Collectors -- Broaden the scope of
    who might fit these categories. Look at responsibilities versus
    positions. It was suggested that the terminology "Officers Involved
    in the Collection Information/Intelligence" be used. Mr. Bodrero
    suggested listing who should attend training based on a list of
    responsibilities rather than position types.

-   Intelligence Analysts -- Consider a certification process. As part
    of the discussion, Ms. Marilyn Peterson provided a copy of the
    Analytical Standards document to the members for review and
    consideration. In addition, she referred to the Society of Certified
    Criminal Analysts (SCCA) to learn about analyst certification.
    Information about the SCCA can be found at
    [www.certifiedanalysts.org](http://www.certifiedanalysts.org/).

-   Train-the-Trainer -- Instructors should train officers, managers and
    analysts, but not executives. Trainers should also be trained on how
    to train adults. Subject-matter experts develop the programs, and
    then the trainers come in to learn how to train the course.

Chief O'Connor asked whether there was any remaining business to be
addressed. Hearing none, the Committee adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

> **Policy/Standards Committee Meeting**

The Policy/Standards Committee meeting was cochaired by Mr. Thomas
Frazier, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and Mr. Pete Modafferi,
Rockland County, New York, District Attorney's Office. The following
individuals were in attendance:

> Mr. Steven Raubenolt
>
> *Ohio Office of the Attorney General*
>
> Ms. Judith Bertini
>
> *U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration*
>
> Mr. Melvin Carraway
>
> *Indiana State Police*
>
> Ms. Patty Dobbs
>
> *Institute for Intergovernmental\
> Research*
>
> Mr. Max Fratoddi
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*

Mr. Dennis Garrett

*Arizona Department of Public Safety*

Mr. Dennis Morton

*National Drug Intelligence Center*

Mr. George March

*Regional Information Sharing Systems*

Mr. Thomas Seamon

*International Association of Chiefs of\
Police*

Mr. Dick Ward

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research*

Mr. Dick Ward provided the attendees with an explanation for the recent
consolidation of the Policy and Standards Committees. He requested that
the group identify the most important policies and standards, and then
the cochairs should develop a road map for each issue. What was
developed at this meeting will be presented at the next full meeting.
This effort will be completed over the next several months. After
discussion by the attendees on the difference between standards and
policies, the group addressed the collaboration between GIWG and the
public and private sectors.

Chairman Frazier felt the Committee should stay in line with what IACP
is doing on the private sector. Mr. Thomas Seamon said that IACP and
COPS will publish their Private Sector Policy Summit recommendations in
May 2004, which acknowledges that the government does not trust the
private sector even though most of the private sector security folks are
former law enforcement. The private sector has raised a number of
concerns about working with law enforcement. The concerns are the
possibility of having business information show up in court records, the
prospect of having weaknesses or challenges aired in front of
competitors, business information that could be accessible under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and business records that may be
seized by law enforcement. Mr. Seamon described a process used by the
U.S. Department of State that may be a model for our efforts with the
private sector.

The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) is a group of
international corporations' security directors. The OSAC and the State
Department share intelligence and information about travel, crime, and
terrorism. This relationship also offers a liaison with local country
police. He also mentioned that the state of Illinois has a project to
vet security directors with the hope that they will be able to access
and share intelligence information at the state level. In addition, he
suggested that the group review at how the transportation and banking
industries have addressed the issue of vetting and access to sensitive
intelligence information. There are four professional groups that might
also be helpful: Industrial Securities Managers Association (ISMA);
NASC, for guard companies; Securities Industry Association (SIA), for
security and technology companies; and the International Association of
Security and Investigative Regulators (IASIR), for regulators.

Mr. George March stated that ATIX had already developed a list of 30
different agencies or "communities" that have a public safety role and
might need access to intelligence information. He stated that the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is encouraging fusion centers, to
include providing funds to support them. There was some discussion about
whether or not fusion centers should be identified in any recommended
policy. The consensus seemed to be to include a variety of different
types of intelligence sharing environments but not indicate that one is
better than the other.\
Mr. Max Fratoddi indicated that HIDTA had done a review of 30 sites and
found that the cooperation the sites enjoyed was somewhat based on
personal relationships instead of an established process for information
sharing. He felt that the process had to become the standard.

Mr. Dennis Garrett and Mr. Seamon stated that state and local law
enforcement is looking for a model and/or guidance on how to develop a
relationship with the private sector. Mr. Seamon mentioned that the New
York Electronic Crime Task Force, managed by the Secret Service, could
be a good model for the Committee to review. The group then articulated
several policy statements and recommendations concerning public/private
sector collaboration.

**Policy:** Jurisdictions or groups of jurisdictions should support
processes and protocols devoted to the collection, analysis, and sharing
of criminal activity information, including terrorism information. The
collection, analysis, and sharing functions should not be dependent on
personal relationships but rather be the established processes of the
jurisdiction.

> **Recommendation:** Existing resources should be utilized wherever
> possible, at the macro and micro levels. Do not reinvent systems or
> databases; make the existing ones work more efficiently and
> effectively.

**Policy:** Jurisdictions or groups of jurisdictions should view the
intelligence process as one that is inclusive, involving a
private/public partnership. The level of information is sensitive but
unclassified.

> **Recommendations:**

-   The private sector should be represented by the security department
    of the organization. These individuals typically have a law
    enforcement background and in the past were "trusted" parties. Law
    enforcement can capitalize on this situation and recognize that
    significant intelligence information is collected by these parties,
    which could be useful to their efforts.

-   Law enforcement should be willing to address the concerns of the
    private sector when it comes to safeguarding proprietary
    information. There is also some concern about FOIA requests and
    whether information provided to law enforcement becomes a part of
    that response.

-   The GIWG and/or Global should identify groups of individuals who are
    involved in public safety and might have or even be served by useful
    criminal intelligence information. These groups should agree to be
    vetted by law enforcement and agree to cooperate in the sharing of
    criminal intelligence information by a memorandum of understanding.
    There should be some direction provided on whether or not security
    clearances are necessary to make law enforcement more comfortable
    with this type of interaction.

-   Protocols should be developed for the different types of information
    to be shared.

-   The CICC should consider representation by the private sector on the
    Council.

The next agenda item addressed was development of analytical standards.
(See *Attachment J*.) Ms. Peterson presented a draft document prepared
by the International Association of Law Enforcement Analysts regarding
analysis standards and principles. Mr. Carraway emphasized the need for
standards, not just principles. He believed the group was considering
applying a level of professionalism on analysts and the analytical
process that may not be present today. The group seemed to echo this
sentiment. The Committee agreed to provide comments regarding the
document submitted by\
Ms. Peterson through the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR)
within 10 days.

The Committee continued their discussion of policies and recommended
standards or actions regarding the policies.

**Policy:** Security of criminal intelligence information should cover
the transmission of the information as well as access to such
information. Security should cover physical, administrative, and
technology safeguards.

> **Recommendations:**

-   Information Storage---The physical structures, as well as the
    technologies which house the data, should be addressed.

-   Access/Control---There should be an established vetting process for
    accessing the information.

-   Information Dissemination---Should include audit trails and audit
    logs.

-   Intrusion Detection and Protection.

-   Data Accuracy and Completeness---Need to protect the data from
    modification, purge, and destruction.

-   Third-Party Rule.

-   Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies 28 CFR Part 23
    Security Measures---Should be considered in the development of the
    security standards.

**Policy:** Information sharing processes should develop or have a
mission statement that includes the intelligence process.

The Committee agreed they would like to review the assessment results
that dealt with agencies that have mission statements. They felt the
mission statements should be shared as examples for the field. The group
felt that the outline of what should be in a mission statement was
already in the NCISP and that they should be incorporated into any
mission statement.

**Policy:** Maintain a clearinghouse of nationally recognized "best
practices" for information sharing.

> **Recommendations:**

-   Inclusion in the clearinghouse should not be considered an
    endorsement.

-   The clearinghouse should be used to demonstrate how others have
    addressed the issues raised in the NCISP.

**Policy:** All information sharing processes and protocols must adhere
to privacy principles contained in the NCISP.

> **Recommendations:**

-   Protect individual's rights.

-   Do not hinder investigative process.

The Committee asked that the different Committee mission statements and
the project's structure be put into a chart format to clearly illustrate
how issues moved between the Committees. The Committee also felt that
the CICC should develop a mission statement to clarify what their role
will be in the big picture.

> **Connectivity/Systems Committee Meeting**

Chairman Daniel Oates, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Police Department, convened
the meeting and welcomed all attendees to introduce themselves. The
following individuals were in attendance:

> Mr. Ron Brooks
>
> *Northern California HIDTA*
>
> Mr. Bob Cummings
>
> *Institute for Intergovernmental\
> Research*
>
> Mr. Ron Hawley (for Mr. Ken Bouche)
>
> SEARCH, The National Consortium\
> for Justice Information and Statistics

Mr. Miles Matthews

*Regional Information Sharing Systems*

Mr. Kent Mawyer

*Texas Department of Public Safety*

Mr. Clark Smith (for Mr. Michael Duffy)

*U.S. Department of Justice Office of the\
Chief Information Officer*

Mr. Mark Zadra (for Mr. Phil Ramer)

*Florida Department of Law Enforcement*

Mr. Ken Bouche and Mr. Martin Smith were unable to attend. The following
GIWG members or observers were present at some time during the meeting:

> Mr. Melvin J. Carraway
>
> *Indiana State Police*
>
> Mr. John Elliff
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Joe Heaps
>
> *National Institute of Justice*

Mr. Mark Michalic

*Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and\
Explosives*

Mr. Doug Poole

*U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration*

Mr. Richard W. Stanek

*Minnesota Department of Public Safety*

**Tear-Line Reports**

Chairman Oates introduced Mr. John Elliff, FBI Intelligence Division, to
present a briefing. Mr. Elliff began by updating the Committee about the
work of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), established in response to
a Presidential directive that a multitude of federal terrorist watch
lists be integrated into a single master list and maintained by the FBI.
The TSC also acts as an information go-between for local and state law
enforcement officers and the federal government. Accessible by query,
depending upon their user level (classified, unclassified, etc.), the
master database will operate 24/7 and will be the primary tool used by
federal officials and the primary terrorism data mart for state and
local law enforcement agencies. It will become a subset of the national
identities database maintained by the Terrorist Threat Integration
Center (TTIC). The TTIC has also been tasked to assume responsibility
for the State Department's TIPOFF database, which contains names of
known and suspected terrorists. He added that the FBI has made
information on subjects of its terrorism investigations accessible
through the National Crime Information Center system to state and local
law enforcement officers nationwide. Mr. Elliff described the
difficulties in coordinating the data from numerous watch lists that are
maintained by nine federal agencies. He added that virtually all of the
information, with the exception of the data in the Violent Gang and
Terrorist Organization File, has been entered and available for those
meeting the four classes of criteria to receive information.

Mr. Elliff also reviewed the FBI's concept and proposed process in
regard to unclassified tear-line reports. These reports are the
declassification of classified data needed for law enforcement purposes,
with the sensitive source and method-of-collection data redacted, yet
retaining as much intelligence content as feasible. It was suggested
that a focus group be appointed to discuss the effectiveness of the
tear-line report and training needed to teach officers how to run
queries and utilize results.

The Committee turned their attention to how an officer confirms data,
receives a response to a query, and uses data when a name is queried in
a database and returned as a person on a terrorist watch list or wanted
by a law enforcement agency. Discussions included the following:

-   The FBI database would have to operate 24/7 for a response to be
    sent quickly.

-   How is the FBI or JTTF immediately notified by the local officer?

-   The telephone could play an important role by possibly establishing
    800 numbers with 24/7 operation.

-   How can small departments without secure computer environments
    communicate?

-   The street officer must be connected with the FBI.

-   The law enforcement community should have the ability to query
    multiple systems.

-   There should be a shared database for full text searches by those
    with permissions of investigative files.

Discussion continued regarding criminal intelligence Web sites and their
content, including RISS and the FBI-sponsored Law Enforcement Online
(LEO). However, these sites are only for those who have authority to
access law enforcement sensitive data at different levels, usually
management level and intelligence units. Street-level law enforcement
can only access unclassified information.

The subject of one terrorism-related database was addressed. The
Committee agreed that the concept of everything contained in one
database is unreasonable. It was suggested that a multiplatform system
is needed and that several models exist that can be used as a pipeline
to the various databases/networks. It was noted that the TSC is staffed
24/7 and is operational although all of the data has not yet been
included. The Committee agreed that they should not be proponents for a
specific system.

The Committee addressed concerns regarding the DHS and FBI Threat
Advisory (bulletins) sent to state, local, and tribal agencies on a
weekly basis. Discussion points included:

-   Local and state agencies usually receive FBI bulletins on Fridays
    after 5:00 p.m. It was suggested that the information would reach
    the street officer quicker if the bulletins were received early
    Monday mornings. The DHS bulletin usually arrives just a few minutes
    before the FBI bulletin.

-   FBI and DHS bulletins are duplicative, frequently containing the
    same information.

-   Customizing bulletins to state and local agencies was suggested. It
    was noted that a lot of information contained in bulletins does not
    apply to many state and local agencies (i.e., information regarding
    threats to nuclear power plants to states where there are none).

-   Bulletins cause confusion as to who should receive them. The FBI
    classifies bulletins as "law enforcement sensitive," and DHS asks
    that the bulletin information be sent to emergency management, first
    responders, and health departments (although the top of the bulletin
    states that the bulletin should not be disseminated).

Mr. Clark Smith distributed copies of an article *Getting IT Right,* by\
Charlie S. Feld and Donna B. Stoddard, from the *Harvard Business
Review.* In summary, the article outlined three principles for executing
information technology effectively:\
1) linking information technology to the corporate strategy; 2) using a
simplified, unifying corporate technology platform; and 3) developing a
highly functional, performance-oriented IT organization/department that
works as a team.

**Proposed Direction of the Committee**

Chairman Oates presented a concept for the Committee to consider as a
direction to work towards. He suggested that a challenge for the
Committee is to get policymakers and those who make funding choices to
support real change. Rather than focusing on making a system(s) connect
to another system, the Committee should create and market a vision about
how an ideal criminal intelligence network would benefit end users and
make the world a safer place.

**Functional Map of Intelligence Sharing Capabilities**

Chairman Oates introduced Mr. Bob Cummings to discuss the Functional Map
of Intelligence Sharing Capabilities. Mr. Cummings explained that a task
assigned to the Committee is the development of a functional map to
determine the extent of actual intelligence information sharing. He
related that at previous meetings, it was determined that the functional
map should identify major systems and networks within each state, how
they interrelate and connect, and, if available, should include process
flows and future initiatives. In addition, availability of analytical
tools at the local, state, and federal levels will be determined and
included on the functional map assessment.\
Mr. Cummings advised that IIR would conduct the research and prepare the
map. It was agreed that the map should be titled *Landscape of Current
Systems.* There was a lengthy discussion regarding the purpose of the
functional map, types of information needed in the assessment and how to
obtain it, and its use by the law enforcement community. Terms used in
the assessment must be carefully defined, and specific questions should
be developed to assist in gauging the types of systems and availability.
The following were discussed as categories to include in the assessment:

-   Situational Awareness

-   Alert Mechanisms (FBI, DHS, Emergency Response Network \[ERN\])

-   Identify People (commercial/investigative info)

-   Intelligence (compilation)

-   Case Management (regional capability)

-   Incident-Based Systems, Agency-Reporting Systems (define types of
    systems; for example, analytical tools, transport mechanism,
    integrated/compatibility)

-   Proposed Systems

Mr. Cummings was directed to prepare the assessment, based upon input
from the Committee and after asking for input from other GIWG
Committees. The assessment will be reviewed by the Committee prior to
contacting participants. Mr. Cummings advised that personal contact
would be the most expedient manner to conduct the assessment.

**Privacy Issues**

Chairman Oates briefly reviewed the Privacy Checklist with the
Committee. He stated that privacy issues are becoming the biggest hurdle
that prevents information sharing and added that GPIQWG is also
addressing this matter. The Committee briefly discussed incorporating
public data in law enforcement systems.

**Centralized Sites for Sharing Tools**

Chairman Oates referred to the NCISP and its recommendation for the
development of an acquisition mechanism or centralized site that will
enable law enforcement agencies to access shared data visualization and
analytic tools. The Committee discussed ways to identify and compile
information on tools available to set up a model intelligence group,
resources for analytical products and tools (i.e., open source, data
mining, crime information, trend analysis, and visualization and
collaboration methods), new technology, and other mechanisms that enable
local law enforcement agencies, including those with limited resources,
to participate in intelligence development and sharing and to practice
intelligence-led policing. There was further discussion regarding the
advantages to having all intelligence components in a centralized
location, a "one-stop shopping" for officers.

Mr. Cummings suggested that a subcommittee of the Connectivity/Systems
Committee should be formed to develop a list of tools as previously
described.\
Mr. Miles Matthews agreed to chair the subcommittee, and members will
include\
Mr. Mark Zadra and Mr. Kent Mawyer. In addition, Mr. Ritchie Martinez,\
Ms. Marilyn Peterson, Mr. Doug Poole, and Mr. Russ Porter will be asked
to serve on the subcommittee. It was suggested that a representative
from the Regional Organized Crime Information Center™ (ROCIC) should
also be appointed. The subcommittee will define their task and formulate
a recommendation for consideration by the Connectivity/Systems
Committee.

**Committee Membership**

Chairman Oates asked for suggested names of additional persons to serve
on the Committee. Members felt that an individual in a decision-making
role should represent the FBI, as well as DHS. Chairman Oates suggested
Mr. Elliff as the FBI representative, and he will request that Mr.
Carraway ask Ms. Baginski to identify a person with DHS. Mr. Smith was
asked if he would participate as an additional member representing DOJ.
Since Mr. Michel Duffy already serves in this capacity on the Committee,
Mr. Smith will see if he has any objections prior to confirming his
participation.

Due to a scheduling conflict, and prior to leaving, Chairman Oates
asked\
Mr. Cummings to chair the remainder of the meeting.

**Incorporating Fusion Centers**

Mr. Cummings advised that GIWG Chairman Stanek requested that the
Committee discuss fusion center development. Of particular concern is
the local fusion centers being established throughout the country, with
little or no involvement from, or connection to, state agencies in
regard to information sharing, connectivity, standards, strategy,
management, or spending of federal funds. Mr. Cummings pointed out that
funds for the development of fusion centers are available through grants
provided by DHS and the Office of Domestic Security. In addition, Field
Intelligence Groups (FIGs) are being established by the FBI. It appears
that fusion centers are being established to share information between
local law enforcement, firemen, and emergency management personnel.
Discussion ensued, and the following issues were raised by the
Committee:

-   Are local or state fusion centers and FIGs working individually or
    collectively?

-   Is a coordinated effort/strategy important for the development/\
    operation of a fusion center or FIG?

-   Have standards been established, and if so, what are they, and who
    established them?

-   Should local fusion centers or FIGs be connected from a state
    perspective?

-   Are data elements consistent within fusion centers and FIGs?

-   Are funds being provided for the establishment of fusion centers
    without requirements to include information sharing and connectivity
    as primary elements?

Discussion continued, and the Committee requested that IIR gather more
information about fusion centers and FIGs. It was suggested and agreed
upon that the Committee recommends that Global communicate with the
appropriate funding agencies to convey the following suggestions: 1)
some types of standards should be required for funds, 2) intelligence
information sharing should be a primary element, 3) minimum principle
elements and standards should be required, 4) a coordination of efforts
is needed, and 5) others as determined.

**NCISP Assessment Results**

Mr. Cummings advised members that, as part of the GIWG's effort to
implement the components of the NCISP, the GIWG-ESC requested IIR to
develop an assessment tool to gauge the progress and impact of the
NCISP. The assessment tool was disseminated to 217 agencies, consisting
of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as police
organizations and associations. He related that twenty-nine percent of
the agencies responded, and the results were presented at the GIWG
meeting on April 1, 2004. Mr. Cummings reviewed the assessment results
relevant to the work of the Committee.

**Other Issues/Next Step**

The Committee discussed the move by the federal government towards
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and how it may affect the implementation
of the NCISP and access to criminal intelligence information through
various networks, including RISS and LEO. PKI is a combination of
software, encryption technologies, and services that enables the
protection of security of Internet communications. It integrates digital
certificates, public key cryptography, and certificate authorities into
a network security architecture. Another issue discussed was
e-authentication, a gateway that checks the validity of all user
certificates (the identity of people) who want to use the applications
against a database of the agencies' security rules, as well as the
server certificates that issued out the user certificate.

Mr. Matthews related that RISS is pursuing, in collaboration with DHS,
the recognition of one certificate for its members that will allow
access to intelligence information. However, this does not take into
consideration the need to authenticate users with various clearance
levels for access to certain types of intelligence information. It was
noted that sharing data systems can be accomplished with technology, but
to have greater functionality to threaded conversation and to broaden
the ability to share information, authentication must be addressed. At
this point, Mr. Carraway joined the meeting and advised that he has a
meeting scheduled with Ms. Baginski. He will discuss with her the PKI
technology, e-authentication matters, and the importance of the federal
government working arm-in-arm with the RISS, LEO, and other systems to
solve issues relating to security and user access and encourage the
sharing across dissimilar systems.

In closing, Mr. Cummings advised that IIR staff will prepare the format
and questions for the assessment needed to develop the functional map,
the subcommittee charged with the development of a list of tools will be
formed and will begin work, and staff will follow up in regard to adding
other representatives to the Committee. The next meeting will be
tentatively scheduled for early June 2004. There being no other matters
to come before the Committee, the meeting adjourned.

> **Privacy Committee Meeting**

Chairman Russ Porter, Iowa Department of Public Safety, convened the
meeting and welcomed all attendees to introduce themselves. The
following individuals were in attendance:

> Mr. Alan Carlson
>
> *Justice Management Institute*
>
> Mr. Vernon Keenan
>
> *Georgia Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Patrick McCreary
>
> *Bureau of Justice Assistance*

Mr. Michael Schrunk

*Multnomah County, Oregon, District\
Attorney's Office*

Ms. Diane Ragans

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research* Mr. Emory Williams

*Institute for Intergovernmental Research*

Chairman Porter began the meeting by reviewing the agenda and
identifying the goals that the Committee members wanted to accomplish in
the upcoming calendar year. The discussion centered on developing a
three-pronged approach to addressing the following privacy and legal
issues:

1)  Develop a philosophy regarding how to address privacy and legality
    issues.

2)  Develop a guideline with standards to carry out the philosophies.

3)  Develop operational tools that local agencies can use, such as a
    privacy checklist, a model privacy policy, and a model memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) for information sharing.

The discussion moved on to the privacy checklist that the Law
Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU) had developed and agreed to
collaborate with Global on its development. It was mentioned that local
agencies could use the checklist to ensure that they are complying with
the accepted standards for intelligence systems (28 CFR Part 23). After
reviewing the draft document, the following recommendations were made:

-   Contact LEIU and request that a preamble be written for the
    checklist.

-   Make the checklist accessible in an electronic format. It should
    have internal links that connect the user to examples of model
    policies.

-   The 28 CFR Part 23 review checklist should be incorporated into this
    checklist.

-   Research delivery of the checklist on an interactive CD-ROM.

The discussion then turned to guidelines and standards development. The
attendees indicated that any privacy guidelines and standards developed
by Global should be reasonable, and in turn, state and local agencies
will follow them, even if they are stricter than 28 CFR Part 23 (which
is pending modification). The guideline should be constructed and
promulgated in such a manner that any local law enforcement agency,
mayor, city council member, etc., can and will want to indicate that
their agency is following national standards. The following additional
recommendations were identified by the attendees regarding the privacy
guideline:

-   Include an overriding overview from Global that covers the key
    privacy, legality, and constitutional issues.

-   Include all possible references, e.g., 28 CFR Part 23 training,
    Global products, and LEIU checklist.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop the guideline in such a way as to include revision dates so
    it stays current.

-   Possibly include a frequently asked question (FAQ) section.

-   Possibly include a glossary of commonly used terms.

At this time, Mr. Louis Quijas and Mr. John Elliff of the FBI joined the
meeting to provide information on two information sharing initiatives
that the FBI is sponsoring -- the\
Multi-jurisdictional Information Sharing Initiative (MISI---formerly
Gateway) and the Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx) System.
The FBI wanted feedback from the audience regarding whether the
initiatives discussed would meet the needs of state and local users.
(See *Attachment K* for a handout provided by the FBI.) Mr. Quijas
indicated the FBI would benefit from both Systems, but the main question
is what the local officials need from these Systems. After a brief
discussion, the group concurred that MISI should be supported now, as it
assists agencies in their regional investigations, with a goal of
working towards the further development of the nationwide N-DEx System.
Given the increasing globalization of law enforcement, the attendees
thought that if MISI were nurtured now, it would ultimately be included
in the N-DEx System, which would result in increased benefits from N-DEx
in the long-term. All participants agreed that the success of either
System would be dependant on local agency participation. Mr. Elliff and
Mr. Quijas departed the meeting and the discussion returned to the
agenda items.

In order to ensure that the privacy materials being developed are as
inclusive as possible, it was recommended that a gap analysis be
conducted using the Fair Information Practices/Privacy Principles,
existing privacy policies (e.g., Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information
Exchange \[MATRIX\], and RISS), accreditation standards, and any other
checklists. The analysis may identify areas that require enhancement and
those particular areas should be included in the privacy checklist and
model policy. Mr. Alan Carlson advised he would be willing to conduct
the gap analysis.

Regarding the model privacy policy, the attendees suggested that
possibly a group of law enforcement subject-matter experts can be
brought together to review the model privacy policy to ensure that it is
inclusive of all appropriate operational issues. Additionally, it was
suggested that Global coordinate a process to vet the model privacy
policy with external privacy experts prior to publishing it.

Discussion turned to the development of a comprehensive training program
for local law enforcement agencies that would cover all privacy, legal,
and intelligence concerns. The expansion of 28 CFR Part 23 training was
recommended to fill this need. The attendees felt the training should
include all the components of the intelligence process, as well as all
Global standards and applicable policies. Currently, the training only
covers the operating guideline. The training should include a
train-the-trainer component so that local agency basic recruits can also
receive training on these issues.

Mr. Keenan indicated that DHS should consider making the Global
standards part of the criteria for receiving monetary awards from DHS
for information sharing systems.

Chairman Porter reviewed the tasks identified by the attendees, and
after thanking everyone for their active participation and efforts,
adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m.

**[Attachment A]{.underline}**

***FBI Houston FIG Presentation***

**[Attachment B]{.underline}**

***JICC Presentation***

**[Attachment C]{.underline}**

***RISS Presentation***

**[Attachment D]{.underline}**

***NDIC Presentation***

**[Attachment E]{.underline}**

***CITCS Presentation***

**[Attachment F]{.underline}**

***Law Enforcement N-DEx Presentation***

**[Attachment G]{.underline}**

***LEIS Presentation***

**[Attachment H]{.underline}**

***RCIC Presentation***

**[Attachment I]{.underline}**

***Intelligence Requirements***

**[Attachment J]{.underline}**

***Development of Analytical Standards***

**[Attachment K]{.underline}**

***N-DEx and MISI Concept Comparison***