A recent report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reviews the classification procedures at eight agencies and finds significant problems, which unnecessarily complicate classification procedures and inhibit the free flow of information.

Secrecy News obtained the Intelligence Community Classification Guidance Findings and Recommendations Report (January 2008) and released it the week of April 7.

The ODNI report stresses the importance of information sharing within government and the need to foster an environment where analysts and employees have an incentive to share information as opposed to operating with a default presumption of nondisclosure. Yet, the report notes, information sharing is slowed down due to "[i]nconsistent or contradictory classification rules." To facilitate information sharing, the report calls for classification standards that are common to all members of the intelligence community.

In particular, the report's review of agency guidelines found that there was:

• No definition of "national security" or "intelligence"
• No requirement to describe why a document is classified, beyond a reference to the Executive Order describing the three levels of classification
• Little clarity in determining precedence of classification guides when working inter-organizationally
• No standard lexicon across the different classification guides
• No consistent definitions as to what constitutes "damage," "serious damage," or "exceptionally grave damage" to national security, the three definitions used to classify information as confidential, secret, and top secret, respectively
• Duration of classification varies, without rationale, from agency to agency
• Inconsistent standards on declassification
• Absence of universal requirements to mark the date that a document is originally classified

ODNI recommends a number of simple reforms to alleviate many of these difficulties. "These [agency classification] guides present agency-unique and contradictory instructions that do not promote information sharing and collaboration among the Community's agencies and mission partners," states the report.

Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists criticized the report for not examining the need to narrow the scope of intelligence sources and methods that are in need of protection. "Almost anything can serve as an intelligence source or method, including a subscription to the daily newspaper," stated Aftergood. "But not every intelligence source or method requires or deserves classification or other protection from disclosure."

The difficulties in sharing information because of inconsistent and inchoate classification procedures are similar to problems agencies face in sharing sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information. The growing and unorganized use of SBU categories has also been recognized by the administration as severely hindering efforts to share information across government agencies and with state and local governments, and the ODNI is leading an effort to reform the hundreds of SBU categories that have proliferated since 9/11.

In a letter, public interest groups called on the administration to play a role in the formulation of recommendations to correct the SBU system by creating greater public access and accountability.