In the time that's passed since 9/11, it seems the government is still having difficulty articulating to the public what information it needs from its citizens and travelers to this country as well as how that information will be used. While the government takes its duty to protect the United States seriously, its unwillingness or inability to define its data gathering needs and data sharing criteria makes the government its own worse enemy when securing public support for its initiatives.

A lot of discussion at Wednesday's meeting of the Homeland Security Department's new Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee was devoted to security screening, a concept that government and industry alike point to as one way to make the country and its critical infrastructure safer. Screening is seen by the government as a useful tool in deterring terrorism. Others see the government's proposed screening programs as misdirected invasion of privacy. Essentially, screening takes place "anytime a person is being given a privilege," Donna Bucella, director of the Terrorist Screening Center, testified at Wednesday's meeting. "Their information is taken and checked against a terrorist screening list. This applies in different industries and in different situations."

The committee believes the screening issue is so important that it created a screening subcommittee to look at the information being gathered by Homeland Security's various security programs, who has access to this data, and how decisions are made regarding the use of this data. "Our primary concern is the effect that screening has on individuals," Howard Beales, chairman of the screening subcommittee and associate professor of strategic management and public policy at George Washington University, said Wednesday. "We need to know what screening programs are in use and how they work."

On the other side of any screening program is a master terrorist watch list, which the FBI administers through its Terrorist Screening Center. This list includes four primary identifiers, including full name, date of birth, passport number, and country of origin, although not all records contain all of this information. The list provides a source that helps law-enforcement know who should be kept off of planes and prohibited from entering the United States.

Based upon the testimony I heard yesterday, this list is an evolving database that will grow or perhaps even shrink over time based upon law-enforcement investigations. I was very interested to hear Bucella say that the center has cleared and removed 7,000 names from the terrorist watch list since it was created in December 2003, although she didn't provide any information about the size of the list.

Homeland Security itself gathers information through its Homeland Security Operations Center, which represents more than 35 law-enforcement and intelligence agencies on the federal, state, and local levels. The center acts as a clearinghouse for suspicious activity data that's not necessarily grounds for an arrest. Such data could include information about people taking pictures of a bridge or other public structure or landmark or a car that's seen circling such a structure or landmark, or a patient being treated at a hospital for a burn caused by chemicals that can be used to make a bomb. The center gets the information from emergency responders, hospitals, and local law enforcement. "We don't profile, which is aimless because terrorists are not necessarily going to be Arabs during the next attack," Laura Manning, deputy director of the center, said Wednesday.

As controversial as these measures are, few would argue that 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement and intelligence agencies had done a better job of gathering and sharing information. So having all of this data to share should be a good thing. Where the government falls down is its ability to inspire trust. A perfect example of this is the Real ID Act. Instead of passing a separate bill to create the Real ID program, Congress tacked the provisions needed to create this program onto a bill to fund American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sneaky.

What chance does Real ID have of becoming an effective antiterrorist screening measure if the states aren't prepared to meet the program's provisions? States can even choose to opt out of the program if their constituency complains loudly enough. Perhaps if the government wants honesty, it should start by looking at its own actions.