Homeland Security Policy on Intelligence Sharing and Education (Essay Sample)

Policy Paper on Intelligence
Student Name:
Institution Affiliation:
Homeland Security Policy on Intelligence Sharing and Education
Executive Summary
Government agencies and the people in private sectors have been experiencing instances of cyber threats from all corners of the world because of their over-reliance on technology. Recognizing that both the private sector and the government lack a robust and transparent understanding on how they can overcome the challenges of cybersecurity, the Homeland security introduced a bill on cyber-preparedness Act, and it was later passed in the Congress. Within the law, section two offers an opportunity for the businesses and government to work collaboratively by sharing vital information that could jeopardize both areas. The sharing of intelligence between these actors has in the recent past been a problem with the establishment of fusion centers that could help in mitigating the challenges. One of the most significant challenges is that there is mistrust between both sectors and this is facilitated by colossal knowledge gap between experts in the companies and the community they work for as well as the government. In this regard, it is vital for fusion centers such as the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Centre currently known as a cyber center to bridge the gap under the stipulations of the HR 584 through progressive learning programs on the benefits of sharing intellectual knowledge.
Body
Background
The current policy on cybersecurity is the H.R. 584 which has provisions for homeland security intelligence sharing with the private sector (Congress.gov, 2017). The sharing is concluded to be a one-way affair because the policy does not show a link where homeland can share its intelligence with the private sector. Among other things the plan provides for is the “coordination with national cybersecurity and communications integration center access to timely technical assistance, risk management support and incident response capabilities concerning cyber threat indicators. Also, coordination of defensive measures and cybersecurity risks, incidents, mitigation and provision of information and recommendations on security and resilience” (Congress.gov, 2017). Before it became an act the bill was proposed by Republican Dan Donovan (Homeland Security, 2017). One of the most significant fears that the private sector such as banking and financial institutions are faced with is the risk that the information released to the government under Homeland Security may be discharged through public records requests, and may even result into forfeiting of individual intellectual property rights(Nolan, 2015). Moreover, some of them fear that the information may be used against the private sector in a subsequent regulatory action and more importantly the privacy of the executives whose data have been disclosed in the cyber-intelligence (Nolan, 2015). The only way out is for the Homeland Security’s National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) to work collaboratively with NCCIC into introducing educational programs that can be shared with the private sector on ways in which their partnership can enhance their security and that of the nation (Kajankoski, 2015). Before that, they should ensure them of their intellectual rights protection and that of their shareholders, under specific legal mechanisms like the Anti-trust Act. More importantly, the NCSD should encourage the private sector of their intent on acting on those threats promptly and no disclosure of vital information even in public requests can be done.
Analysis
Several organizations have tried to follow the path set by the Homeland security and led to successes in dealing with attacks. A good example is a relationship that existed between Homeland security and private groups to destroy a dangerous worm called Stuxnet. The worm affected several industries in Indonesia and Iran, and t led to the formation of cyber exercises such as the Cyber Storm III (Kaijankoski, 2015). Other significant activities that led to fruitful results were the relationship between Microsoft and the government CERT team. The association led to the dismantling of Waledec botnet, a virus that infected Windows users on a global scale. These are just examples of how an intelligence sharing can point to successes in the prevention of threats, but it all depends on the trust that organizations have with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The mistrust in information sharing can be explained by looking at how large businesses have been able to save on losses as well as their intellectual rights. Though many ICT professionals think that telling the benefits to stakeholders can lead to their loss of work, it is clear to note that the mistrust is ubiquitous from all corners of the business world. Stockholders are not sure if their privacy will be retained if they share information, and thus they restrict their ICT teams from disclosing such data. But a closer look at a study by New York Financial Services on 154 financial institutions revealed that small sized businesses of less than 1 Billion dollars in assets are more reluctant in sharing intelligence to the government, than larger ones of over $10 Billion asset base (Kaijankoski, 2015). Therefore, the Cyber centers should take this opportunity by influencing the smaller firms into accepting the rollout plans of educating their executives and stockholders on the need to have them on board and how their association can ensure a candid success story as that experienced by Microsoft and other businesses in the word.
Policy Options
The DHS can decide to go for the Antitrust Act which provides the opportunity of government agencies not to disclose private information for the protection of important business intellectual property rights. Alternatively, they can stick with the provisions of the H.R-584 on information sharing and formation of ...