The Under Secretary for Science and Technology would head
the Group which would be responsible for preparing “guidance and best practices
to the emergency preparedness and response community on the use of social media
technologies before, during, and after a terrorist attack” {§318(b)}. The Group
would be “composed of a cross section of subject matter experts from Federal,
State, local, tribal, and nongovernmental organization practitioners” {§318(c)(1)}.
The Group would meet at least twice a year and prepare an
annual report to Congress {§318(g)}. That report would include reviews of:
• Current and emerging social media
technologies being used to support preparedness and response activities related
to terrorist attacks;
• Best practices and lessons learned
on the use of social media during the response to terrorist attacks that
occurred during the period covered by the report at issue; and
• Available training for Federal, State,
local, and tribal officials on the use of social media in response to a
terrorist attack.
The annual reports would also include recommendations to:
• The Department’s use of social
media;
• Improve information sharing among
the Department and its components; and
• Available training for Federal, State,
local, and tribal officials on the use of social media in response to a
terrorist attack.
Commentary
This is an odd little bill. The base concept of planning for
the use of social media during a terrorist event does make a certain amount of
sense, but limiting it to ‘in the event of a terrorist attack’ in so many
places in the bill does sound odd and more than somewhat limiting.
The limiting of analysis of best practices and lessons
learned to just during the period “during the response to terrorist attacks” {§318(g)(2)},
for example, seems to be somewhat self-defeating. Terrorist attacks happen so
seldom (hopefully) that there would seem to be little to report in this area.
It would probably be more helpful if this were expanded to any large scale
emergency operation (for example during any presidentially declared emergency).
That way those lessons learned would be available and applicable during the
actual response to a terrorist event.
There are also puzzling references to ‘information sharing
between the Department and appropriate stakeholders” {§318(b)}. I would like to
think that this information sharing would be a tad bit more complex and
detailed than one typically sees in social media.
On the other hand, I suppose that this could be taken to
mean that DHS would use analysis of social media during a terrorist event to
track what is going on. If that were the case, however, I would expect to see
the mention of various critical infrastructure information and analysis centers
(ISACs) and perhaps the Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis in the
organizations that would be represented in the Working Group. They are
conspicuously absent.
Moving Forward
Ms Brooks is the Chair of the Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security
Committee. One of the three cosponsors is Rep. Payne (D,NJ) the ranking member
of the same Subcommittee. You can’t get much more bipartisan than that.
I expect that we will see a Subcommittee hearing on this in
the next couple of weeks. How it moves from there will depend on how it fits in
Chairman McCaul’s priorities for the full Committee. I don’t expect that there
will be much, if any, opposition to this bill if it makes it to the floor of
the House.
I don’t really expect that the Senate would take up this
bill unless it attracts the positive attention of Sen. Reid, in which case it
would get considered and passed under unanimous consent procedures. It is more
likely to get passed if it gets added to the FY 2015 Homeland Security spending
bill.
Posts
