|
<-- Return To Right-to-Know or Left-to-Wonder?
Bush's War on Freedom - Study: Many Federal Sites Not Terror Risks
Fair Use Statement
For instance, Rand advocated that an Environmental Protection Agency Web
site that discloses where toxic chemicals are stored and in what quantity
should not be restricted because its value to terrorists is outweighed by
its value to communities preparing for emergencies.
Related Publications:
Download the Rand Report for Free
Source: Associated Press
May 10, 2004
Study: Many Federal Sites Not Terror Risks
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal officials should consider reopening public
access to about three dozen Web sites withdrawn from the Internet after
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a government-financed study says, because the
sites pose little or no risk to homeland security.
The Rand Corp. said the overwhelming majority of federal Web sites that
reveal information about airports, power plants, military bases and other
potential terrorist targets need not be censored because similar or better
information is easily available elsewhere.
Rand identified four Web pages that might merit the restrictions imposed
after the attacks.
"It's a good time to take a closer look at the choices that they made at
the time," said John Baker, principal author of the study, which was
funded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the government's
intelligence mapping agency.
Advocates of open government said the report shows the Bush
administration acted rashly after the suicide attacks when it scrubbed
numerous government Web sites.
"It was a gigantic mistake, and I hope the study brings some rationality
back to this policy," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of
American Scientists' project on government secrecy. "Up to now, decisions
have been made on a knee-jerk basis."
Rand's National Defense Research Institute identified 629
Internet-accessible federal databases that contain critical data about
specific locations. Co-author Beth Lachman said they "appeared to be the
most sensitive sites" among 5,000 federal Web pages the researchers
checked.
The study, conducted between mid-2002 and mid-2003, found no federal Web
sites that contained target information essential to a terrorist - in
other words, information a terrorist would need to launch an attack.
It identified four databases - less than 1 percent of the 629 - where
restricting access probably would enhance homeland security. None was
available to the general public anymore. Those sites included two devoted
to pipelines, one to nuclear reactors and one to dams.
Researchers recommended that officials evaluate 66 databases with some
useful information, but they didn't anticipate restrictions would be
needed because similar or better data probably could be easily obtained
elsewhere.
The remaining 559 databases "are probably not significant for addressing
attackers' information needs and do not warrant any type of public
restriction," the report said. It said that any information they contain
that could be useful to terrorists is easily obtained elsewhere, often by
simple, legal observation in an open society.
The Rand researchers found that 30 federal agencies or departments make
public, on paper or online, "geospatial information" about critical or
symbolic locations and structures. That kind of data can be as simple as a
telephone book or as complex as an Internet database that discloses how
many people live near each of the nation's power plants or toxic chemical
storage sites.
After Sept. 11, federal agencies scrambled to pull such data off the
Internet. The Transportation Department removed pipeline maps. The
Environmental Protection Agency deleted descriptions of risk management
plans for chemicals stored at 15,000 sites. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission took down its Web site, although much of it is now back online.
Using Internet archives that preserve old Web pages or detailed written
descriptions, researchers identified 39 federal geospatial databases taken
off-line since Sept. 11.
Other than the four databases that posed some risk, "these restrictions
need to be more thoroughly assessed," the researchers wrote.
"Under the circumstances, these officials took prudent steps but in a very
piecemeal, patchwork way," Baker said.
The study proposed a framework for analyzing and possibly restoring such
data to the Internet:
-How useful would it be to an attacker? Far more detailed information is
needed to plan an attack than to pick a target, but most federal Web sites
are too general to help with more than target selection.
-Is similar or better data readily available elsewhere? If so, "the net
security benefits of restricting access ... may be minimal or nonexistent"
and could "possibly lead ... to a false sense of security at worst."
-Does the gain in security from restrictions outweigh any harm to those
using the data, such as police and fire departments, economic planners or
private companies?
For instance, Rand advocated that an Environmental Protection Agency Web
site that discloses where toxic chemicals are stored and in what quantity
should not be restricted because its value to terrorists is outweighed by
its value to communities preparing for emergencies.
Restricting the site would "diminish the public good that comes from
providing local communities access to information that can significantly
affect the well-being of citizens," the study said.
To demonstrate the futility of removing government data that isn't
unique, Rand researchers picked out 300 non-federal Web sites that had
similar or better information about critical U.S. targets than federal
pages.
For instance, an online scuba magazine contains a divers' description of
the ocean depths and currents around an oil-drilling platform off the
southern California coast that would be more useful to terrorists than the
federal sites that described the platform.
Download the Rand Report for Free
Related Publications:
<-- Return To Right-to-Know or Left-to-Wonder?
| 
