Department of Labor officials told a congressional committee that they decided to force journalists to use government computers and software in reporting new unemployment data because that’s what was recommended in a special security study by the Sandia National Laboratory.
What they didn’t tell the committee or members of the media was that the study also said serious security problems were far more likely to be caused by flaws in the department’s own internal computer systems than by journalists participating in the weekly “media lockups” used to release the data, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner.
For years, selected journalists from major media organizations have been admitted to a special room at DOL half-an-hour before the official release time so they can prepare stories and background information ready to go live as soon as the new data is made public.
Controversy erupted in April when DOL officials unilaterally announced the new procedures, including the requirement that only government computers and software could be used and a new credentialing process that was likely to bar some media organizations that had previously been admitted to the lockups.
Carl Fillichio, senior advisor for communications and public affairs for Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, initially told journalists during an April 16 conference call he convened to explain the new procedures that they were needed because “it’s been more than a decade since the department reviewed its lockup procedures.”
Later in the conference call, Fillichio claimed the changes followed violations by two journalists he refused to name. He also refused to describe the nature of their violations.
A few days later, he told media representatives during a negotiating session on implementation of the new procedures that the changes were recommended in the Sandia study that DOL had commissioned, but he did not make a copy of the study available to them.
Then Fillichio told a June 6 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the Sandia report “included recommendations that we; one, replace the variety of privately owned equipment with standardized equipment that will significantly reduce the possibility of data leaks. Two, secure standardized phone data lines that are physically off limits to news media organizations and three, require that reporters electronic devices and personal effects be stored outside of the lockup room.”
What Fillichio did not tell the committee or journalists covering the issue was the fact that a footnote in the Sandia study said the department’s “IT environments where the data are produced are more likely avenues for data loss than is the press lockup facility.”
The footnote further explained that attempts to gain access to the data prior to its release would be more likely to occur elsewhere in DOL because of “the difficulty of conclusively attributing malicious actions over the Internet to specifici individuals versus actions carried out in person in the Press Lockup Facility.”
The footnote added that “compromise of an IT system offers an adversary long-term long-term unauthorized accesses to potentially valuable information with little chance of discovery.”
During the June 6 hearing, Fillichio agreed to allow committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-CA, and ranking minority member Elijah Cummings, D-MD, to see the Sandia study, but the footnote was redacted from the version that was then given to the panel. The footnote was included in the version they were allowed to review two days later in-camera (i.e. look but don’t take a copy).
Issa told Solis in a June 12 letter that the committee would consider issuing a subpoena if an unredacted copy was not made available by June 26. The footnote was present in an otherwise redacted copy was given to the committee on the day of the deadline.
During the same two-week period, DOL officials backed off of their proposal requiring use of government computers and software. Negotiations between the department and media representatives on the new procedures are continuing.
Earlier today, DOL’s public affairs office posted a heavily redacted copy of the Sandia study – look for the links to “CleanSweep Red Team Report” – that does not appear to include the footnote seen on page 32 of the text obtained by The Washington Examiner. (See Update II below).
The Washington Examiner has requested comment from Fillichio, both concerning his statements regarding the Sandia study to the news media and the congressional committee, and whether Solis reviewed an unredacted copy of the study prior to the April 16 conference call or the June 6 hearing.
UPDATE: No comment has been received from Fillichio or any other DOL official, as of 5:45 pm today.
UPDATE II: Clarification on footnote.
Jennifer Kaplan of DOL’s public affairs office points out that the footnote referenced above as not being present on the department’s web site is present on page 32 of the second of two versions posted earlier today.
Mark Tapscott is executive editor of The Washington Examiner.
