Civil Rights
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.
Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.
Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.
Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.
Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.
Wilmington, North Carolina once had a thriving Black middle class and an elected interracial government. In 1898 white supremacists used violence to overthrow that government, kill Black residents and drive many others from the city.
MORE →Reflects the personal views, recollections, and perspective of the author, Mike Davis.
This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985
 | The examples and perspectives in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (June 2015) |
| Part of a series on the |
| Intelligence field and Intelligence |
|---|
 |
Intelligence sharing is "the ability to exchange intelligence, information, data, or knowledge among Federal, state, local or private-sector entities as appropriate."[1] Intelligence sharing also involves intergovernmental bilateral or multilateral agreements and through international organizations. Intelligence sharing is meant to facilitate the use of actionable intelligence to a broader range of decision-makers.
Intelligence sharing is contrasted with information sharing, which may share the same methods of dissemination, but involves non-evaluated materials that have not been put through the rigors of the intelligence cycle.
Intelligence sharing, as a formal action performed by intelligence agencies and intergovernmental organizations, is a newer phenomena. Especially in the United States Intelligence Community (IC), intelligence sharing was not formalized until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the need for intelligence sharing was the greatest.[2] Before 9/11, many of the major US intelligence agencies, especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were protective of their information, and were unwilling to share information with the other agency, finding the other's methods to interfere with better procedure.[3] The formalization of intelligence sharing began with the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention and Act of 2004, which changed the overall structure of the US intelligence community, and formed the Department of Homeland Security[4] The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also became the umbrella organization for 15 intelligence agencies, between which the DHS would facilitate information sharing and collaboration.[5]
In addition, the formation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence facilitated the sharing of intelligence between agencies and administrates several centers for improving intelligence work, including the Information Sharing Environment.
According to Joseph Pfeifer, there are four different type of networks which can be created to facilitate intelligence sharing: hierarchical, co-located liaisons, hub-and-spoke, and network fusion.[6]
Hierarchical linear intelligence systems involve singular, point to point connections between agencies, such as between a federal and state level organization, a state organization to a local entity, or bilateral agreements between states.[6] These sharing mechanisms tend to be slow, but allow for increased security, as there is a tightly controlled exchange of intelligence.
Co-located liaisons networks involve the creation of cooperative, multi-agency or multi-governmental locations which house representatives and analysts from a diverse set of agencies. In these organizations, there are typically dedicated buildings and organizations to facilitate such intelligence sharing. The most common example of co-located liaisons networks are fusion centers, which are formed from agencies or governments which have similar goals, and facilitate intelligence sharing in a common place.
Hub-and-spoke network organization of intelligence sharing involves a common connection to intelligence and information, typically through secured networks to common servers and databases which all members can access. This method of intelligence sharing is employed by the Department of Homeland Security, which has NIPRNet and SIPRNet databases which connects its member agencies. Intellipedia is also a form of hub-and-spoke intelligence sharing.[7]
Network fusion involves a combination of these networks which best facilitates the intelligence sharing for the particular organizations which utilize it. It is this multilevel integration of sharing techniques which many find to be lacking most between intelligence organizations.[6]
Intelligence sharing occurs in every field that intelligence analysis is produced. The main fields of intelligence analysis are national security, law enforcement, and competitive. In each of these fields, intelligence is shared between agencies, bureaus, governments, or business partners in order to further their organizational goals. These goals can range from protecting people from violent threats, finding and apprehending criminals, or maintaining competitive advantage over other companies.
In the United States, national security intelligence sharing occurs on many levels, ranging from field offices of IC organs to the White House. The intelligence sharing became a formalized policy after 9/11, when several Congressional acts reorganized the intelligence community and formalized intelligence sharing practices throughout. The Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and various fusion centers throughout the United States have been the vehicles for intelligence sharing. Their overall success in alleviating problems of intelligence sharing and effectiveness of operations has varied, but the need for improvements is acknowledged.[8]
In Europe, national security operations are carried out by various national agencies and the collective efforts of police forces through Europol and Interpol.[9] Europol intelligence sharing became an imperative after 9/11 in much the same way of the US. In November 2001, a European Council meeting created the Counter Terrorist Task Force, which facilitated increased counter-terror efforts in EU member states and encouraged intelligence sharing between member states to prevent an attack similar to 9/11.[10] Subsequent terrorist attacks in London and Madrid in 2004 and 2005 "gave impetus to EU initiatives", and the creation of the Counterterrorism Coordinator increased collective efforts for national security aims for member states.[11]
Since 2001, legislation and informal meetings between the US Secretary of State, Director of Homeland Security, and other ministerial members of the US intelligence community have met with their counterparts in EU ministries to discuss shared objectives and provide information on transport security and impeding terrorist travel.[12]
According to the US National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP), the law enforcement community went through similar changes as the national security community in order to perform to new expectations in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The NCISP "was designed by state, local, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners to provide a path forward in improving the collection and analysis of information to create valuable and actionable intelligence products."[13]: V
Through the NCISP, there are 9 critical elements, 2 understandings of the systems which work in the intelligence sharing process, and 8 different types of participants. The 9 critical elements are leadership, partnerships, privacy, civil rights and civil liberties; policies, plans and procedures; intelligence process, training, security and safeguarding, technology and standards, and sustainability. The systems which are thought to be needed to achieve the Framework outlined are that the key to the success of information sharing systems is both use and interoperability and system interoperability is a complex problem. The main participants in intelligence sharing are criminal justice and law enforcement agencies below the federal level, federal law enforcement agencies, fusion centers, regional information sharing systems, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs), crime analysis centers, law enforcement professional organizations, and private sector and non-law enforcement organizations.[13]
In the private intelligence field, businesses of various types, products and services will employ intelligence analysis to further their organizational goals, competitive advantage, and security.
Typical businesses will keep much of their analytic products away from the public eye and especially from competitors. However, the realm of security, especially cyber security is a topic which many businesses have cooperated on in order to create a safer environment for their products, information, and customers. An example of this is the Retail Cyber Intelligence Sharing Center, which is a cooperative from over 30 (specifically) retail companies to share information and intelligence which pertains to the security of retail firms. Collectively, their work attempts to identify common threats and share best practices.[14]
Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.
Intelligence sharing is "the ability to exchange intelligence, information, data, or knowledge among Federal, state, local or private-sector entities as appropriate." Intelligence sharing also involves intergovernmental bilateral or multilateral agreements and through international organizations. Intelligence sharing is meant to facilitate the use of actionable intelligence to a broader range of decision-makers. Intelligence sharing is contrasted with information sharing, which may share the same methods of dissemination, but involves non-evaluated materials that have not been put through the rigors of the intelligence cycle.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA H.R. 3523 (112th Congress), H.R. 624 (113th Congress), H.R. 234 (114th Congress)) was a proposed law in the United States which would allow for the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies. The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S. government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattacks. The legislation was introduced on November 30, 2011, by Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI) and 111 co-sponsors. It was passed in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012, but was not passed by the U.S. Senate. President Barack Obama's advisers have argued that the bill lacks confidentiality and civil liberties safeguards, and the White House said he would veto it. In February 2013, the House reintroduced the bill and it passed in the United States House of Representatives on April 18, 2013, but stalled and was not voted upon by the Senate. On July 10, 2014, a similar bill, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), was introduced in the Senate. In January 2015, the House reintroduced the bill again. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Intelligence, and as of February 2, 2015, to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice to see if it will come to the House for a vote. In December 2015 a version of CISPA was hidden in the total federal budget. CISPA had garnered favor from corporations and lobbying groups such as Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, IBM, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, which look on it as a simple and effective means of sharing important cyber threat information with the government. It has however been criticized by advocates of Internet privacy and civil liberties, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Free Press, Fight for the Future, and Avaaz.org, as well as various conservative and libertarian groups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, TechFreedom, FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, Liberty Coalition, and the American Conservative Union. Those groups argue CISPA contains too few limits on how and when the government may monitor a private individual's Internet browsing information. Additionally, they fear that such new powers could be used to spy on the general public rather than to pursue malicious hackers. Some critics saw wording included in CISPA, as a second attempt to protect intellectual property after the Stop Online Piracy Act was taken off the table by Congress after it met opposition. Intellectual property theft was initially listed in the bill, as a possible cause for sharing Web traffic information with the government, though it was removed in subsequent drafts.
The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) is an intelligence-sharing initiative that links the computer databases of local, state, regional, tribal law enforcement agencies with those of the U.S. federal government.
The director of national intelligence (DNI) is a cabinet-level United States government intelligence and security official. The position is required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to serve as executive head of the United States Intelligence Community (IC) and to direct and oversee the National Intelligence Program (NIP). All 18 IC agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), report directly to the DNI. Other federal agencies with intelligence capabilities also report to the DNI, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The DNI also serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council on all intelligence matters. The DNI, supported by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), produces the President's Daily Brief, a highly classified document including intelligence from all IC agencies, shared each morning with the president of the United States. The DNI, who is appointed by the president of the United States and is subject to confirmation by the United States Senate, serves at the pleasure of the president. President George W. Bush strengthened the role of the DNI on July 30, 2008, with Executive Order 13470, which, among other things, solidified the DNI's legal authority to direct intelligence gathering and analysis, and to set policy for intelligence sharing with foreign agencies and for the hiring and firing of senior intelligence officials. The DNI was given further responsibility for the entire IC's whistleblowing and source protection by President Barack Obama via Presidential Policy Directive 19 on October 10, 2012. The position was elevated to a cabinet-level role during the first presidency of Donald Trump and retained this status in subsequent administrations. Currently, the DNI attends all cabinet meetings and liaises with the executive office of the president and other Cabinet secretaries in the execution of their duties. President Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to the position in 2025, and she was subsequently confirmed by the US Senate on February 12, 2025. On May 22, 2026, Gabbard announced her resignation from the role of DNI, effective June 30, citing her need to care for her husband, who had been diagnosed with bone cancer. On June 11, President Trump nominated Jay Clayton, a New York state attorney and former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to replace Gabbard as DNI. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 28 and sworn into office on August 3.
Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.
MORE →Joe Louis.