Officials involved with the development of fusion centers aimed at sharing intelligence with state and local authorities around the country said Wednesday that the centers pose no danger to privacy.

At a meeting of the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee — a group composed of businesspeople and academics — Robert Riegle, deputy director of the state and local program office at DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Affairs, said there is a misperception that the centers collect and store data on suspects.

In fact, he said the centers, which are run by state and local authorities, do not keep information databases.

“If there is no reason to believe that a person is involved in inappropriate activities, [that person’s data] is immediately expunged,” he said.

He also said the centers are not any type of “domestic surveillance” program, and are involved only in intelligence-sharing.

DHS has put more than $380 million into the fusion centers, of which there are 43 in existence or the planning stages. Riegle said they provide a “novel, different approach” for DHS when it comes to sharing information with the states. The centers allow for a customized approach in the areas where they are located, he said.

“There is no cookie-cutter approach to these centers that’s going to work uniformly,” he said, although he added that all have had to accept recommendations and baseline capability standards from DHS. Those standards include a mandate that each center must produce a privacy policy before spending federal money.

The core idea behind the centers — federal intelligence flowing to state and local law enforcement, along with sharing between states — has raised concern among privacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which sent a representative to Wednesday’s advisory council meeting.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) also sent a representative, and submitted a prepared statement stating the fusion centers do not have the clear oversight and policy mechanisms in place to properly handle intelligence that could affect personal privacy.

“There are too many unanswered questions regarding the creation, purpose, and use of fusion centers,” the statement said. “Advocates working in the public’s interests, academic researchers, legal scholars, attorneys, the courts and journalists all can play a vital role in checking the application of systems of surveillance to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are retained.”

The recommendations in EPIC’s statement include:

• DHS disclosing the location, jurisdiction and funding provided for each center.

• The suspension of funding to the centers until a full privacy impact analysis is concluded.

• An inspector general’s investigation to see if the centers comply with federal laws that protect due process, privacy, civil liberties and civil rights.

• Requiring each center to publicly name all its federal, state, local and private partners.

• Annual reports from each centers listing the number of arrests and prosecutions and convictions by category of offense that stem from fusion center activities.

• Having any information collected, analyzed or shared with a center comply with the Federal Privacy Act.

Riegle said none of the centers have received privacy complaints or concerns, and said the Sept. 11 commission recommendation legislation (PL 110-53) requires the centers to focus on privacy and civil liberties. Each will have new reporting requirements and privacy and civil liberty training for officers.

“The fusion centers and the national network of fusion centers has been a very good thing,” he said.

He said the centers are less about bringing state and local agencies into the intelligence fold and more about building trusting relationships with them, giving them information they need to keep their communities safe.

“It’s not like we’re trying to do something new,” he said.

When asked if the public knows enough about the centers to actually make any privacy complaints, Riegle said they have been well-reported in the media, and have been discussed publicly by the state legislatures that partially fund them.

But he also said “Some of these centers are pretty embryonic . . . are they well known? Probably not.”

Rob Margetta can be reached at rmargetta@cq.com.