Government Web Secrecy Doesn't Provide Security

A recent report by the RAND Corporation reveals that information scrubbed from government websites after the Sept. 11 attacks were unnecessary and unproductive in protecting against terrorism. Many government agencies have removed extensive amounts of information from their websites on the remote chance it could be misused by terrorists. The RAND report establishes that the agencies' approach of viewing information only as a threat and not considering the benefits is erroneous. The RAND report, Mapping the Risks: Assessing the Homeland Security Implications of Publicly Available Geospatial Information, focused on the removal of maps and imagery information. Proponents of restricting access to data often highlighted these types of data as the most dangerous because of their potential usefulness to terrorists in selecting targets and planning attacks. The report found that although such information could potentially aid terrorists, the data available was simply not detailed or current enough to be significantly useful to their purposes. The report also concluded that terrorists could acquire better information from direct observation or other public sources including textbooks, trade journals, street maps and non-governmental websites. Therefore the removal of the information from government websites was pointless. The report also noted that while the removed information did not pose a significant threat it did provide vast benefits to the general public. Specific uses for the information noted in the report included assisting law enforcement, advancing scientific knowledge, informing people about environmental risks, and helping communities prepare and respond to disasters and emergencies. In order to preserve such benefits, RAND called for a reasoned analytical process, rather than a hasty unguided response. The report recommended systematically evaluating the risks associated with particular information prior to removal. The study suggested as a useful first step evaluating three key factors: the usefulness of information to an attacker, the uniqueness of the information, and the societal benefits and costs of restricting public access to information. While the report focused solely on geospatial data, the observations and conclusions of the report could easily be applied more broadly. After the 9-11 attacks agencies removed much more than just geospatial data from government websites. It seems reasonable to assume that these restrictions also significantly reduce benefits to citizens without providing any substantial increase in security from terrorists. Additionally, access to government information would benefit if agencies applied the recommended evaluation criteria to all information being considered for removal or restriction.
back to Blog