In security and intelligence circles, information sharing has become a mantra and often for good reason. Fragmented systems and siloed case files have hindered countless investigations over the years.

But in the rush to fix under‑sharing, many agencies and organizations have swung too far in the other direction. A “share everything” mindset can quietly introduce new risks: data leaks, compromised sources, broken chain of custody, regulatory violations, and internal mistrust.

At Kaseware, we believe effective security isn’t about sharing all information. It’s about sharing the right information, with the right people, at the right time, backed by strong information governance and modern investigative tools.

The Case for Smarter Information Governance

Investigations today look nothing like they did even a decade ago. Federal, state, and local agencies are coordinating with fusion centers, international partners, corporate security teams, and even private intelligence organizations. 

Data now flows from:

  • Patrol Reports and Incident Calls.
  • Open-Source Intelligence and Threat Intelligence Feeds.
  • Enterprise systems (HR, legal, IT, Physical Security).
  • Digital Evidence and Analytics Platforms.

Without a strong information governance strategy, this volume and variety of data becomes a liability, not an asset.

Information governance in investigations should answer a few core questions:

  • Who is allowed to see what information?
  • When should they gain or lose access?
  • Under what authority or clearance is that access granted?
  • How is access and usage recorded for accountability?

Kaseware was founded by former FBI Special Agents who helped design and build Sentinel, the FBI’s case management system still in use today. That experience ingrained a simple truth: information sharing only works when it’s paired with disciplined control and auditable processes. 

Smarter governance isn’t a blocker to collaboration. It’s what makes collaboration safe enough to scale.

Why Over‑Sharing Can Be a Security Risk

When a crisis hits, such as a mass‑casualty incident, a major cyberattack, or a sensitive insider threat case, it’s natural for leaders to say: “Send everything to everyone who might help.”

That instinct is understandable. It’s also dangerous. The “share everything” trap can create the very problems we’re trying to avoid.

Common Risks of Over‑Sharing

When agencies lean too far into a “share everything” mindset, they can unintentionally create new vulnerabilities that undermine investigations and overall security.

Data Exposure and Insider Risk

The more people who can see sensitive records, including undercover identities, informant details, PII, or privileged corporate data, the more likely it is to spill out into the public. Even well‑intentioned employees can screenshot, forward, or download information they shouldn’t.

This is especially problematic in insider threat case management, where the subject of the investigation may have broad system access or trusted relationships across the organization. If the wrong person catches a glimpse of an active case, the investigation can be blown in minutes.

Loss of Clarity Over “Who Knew What and When Did They Know It?”

If case documents are emailed, exported, or shared informally across channels, it becomes extremely difficult to reconstruct:

  • Who accessed a sensitive report? 
  • When they saw it.
  • What actions did they take afterward?

For law enforcement, regulators, and corporate counsel, that lack of traceability is a major red flag, especially in after‑action reviews or litigation.

Chain of Custody and Classification Problems

When attachments are forwarded, exported from systems of record, or saved locally, you risk:

  • Breaking Chain‑of‑Custody Documentation.
  • Mixing Classified or Restricted Information with Unclassified Files.
  • Losing Control Over Redactions or Need‑to‑Know Restrictions.

Modern investigative platforms must treat evidence and case records as controlled assets, not just files to be emailed around.

Regulatory and Policy Non‑Compliance

Privacy laws, data residency requirements, consent decrees, and internal policies all impose constraints on what can be shared and with whom. Over‑sharing increases the odds of violating:

  • Criminal Justice Information Regulations.
  • Employment and Privacy Laws.
  • Contractual Confidentiality Obligations.

Internal Trust and Culture Damage

If employees or partner agencies feel like sensitive information is being shared indiscriminately, it erodes trust. Analysts and investigators may start to withhold details, fearing misuse or leaks, ironically re‑introducing the silos everyone is trying to eliminate.

When Role‑Based Access Is Mission‑Critical

To move beyond “share everything” vs. “share nothing,” agencies need a structured way to define who sees what. That’s where role‑based access control (RBAC) becomes mission‑critical.

In RBAC, you assign permissions based on a user’s role, not on one‑off decisions or ad‑hoc exceptions. For investigative work, that could mean:

  • Detectives and Case Agents: Full access to their own cases, limited access to others.
  • Intel Analysts: Broad search access for pattern analysis, but limited viewing of personally identifiable details or sealed evidence.
  • Supervisors and Command Staff: Oversight across units, with stronger controls on editing or exporting.
  • Corporate Security and HR: Controlled access to workplace violence, insider threat, or misconduct cases, with strict limits on source‑sensitive data.

Done well, RBAC supports longstanding principles like:

  • Least Privilege: Users get only the access they need to perform their duties.
  • Need‑to‑Know: Sensitive details (sources, tactics, confidential tips) are compartmentalized.
  • Segregation of Duties: No single user can alter evidence or case outcomes unchecked.

In a modern investigations platform, role‑based access control shouldn’t be a one‑time configuration. It must be:

  • Granular: Permissions down to case type, data field, or evidence category.
  • Configurable: Aligned with agency structure, clearance levels, or corporate hierarchy.
  • Audited: Every access, change, and export logged for review.

This is how organizations protect sensitive investigations without paralyzing operations.

Collaboration Without Compromise

“Secure” does not mean “slow.” Security teams, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies still need to move quickly and work together, often across jurisdictions, disciplines, or even countries.

The goal is secure case collaboration: teams can see the information they need, contribute insights, and coordinate action without overexposing sensitive details.

A few real-world scenarios may include: 

Fusion Centers and Joint Task Forces

Multiple agencies share a case management platform, but not every agency should see everything. You might:

  • Share summarized threat bulletins across all partners.
  • Allow a subset of agencies to see detailed informant reports.
  • Restrict the most sensitive sources to a small cleared team.

This is where tenant‑based data sharing and team‑level segmentation become essential. A common platform can support cross‑agency collaboration while keeping each agency’s data partitioned and governed by its own rules.

Corporate Security and Insider Threat Teams

In a global enterprise, cases may involve:

  • Local Site Security.
  • HR and Legal.
  • IT and Cybersecurity.
  • Executive Protection or Crisis Management.

Each of these groups needs a window into the case, but not always the same view. Thoughtful compartmentalization lets you share investigative context (e.g., indicators of compromise, threat patterns, incident timelines) without exposing HR notes, privileged legal communication, or whistleblower identities.

OSINT and External Intelligence Partnerships

Integrating OSINT feeds or third‑party threat intel into your investigative platform is powerful. But those insights often carry usage restrictions. Configurable access controls ensure OSINT data is visible only to authorized users, while still enabling role‑based collaboration against shared threats.

In all of these scenarios, the objective is clear: collaboration without compromise.

How Kaseware Enables Controlled Information Sharing

Kaseware was built specifically for modern investigative work, public safety, corporate security, intelligence, and beyond. Drawing on our team’s experience building Sentinel for the FBI and supporting agencies worldwide, we’ve embedded smart information governance into the platform from day one.

Here’s how our capabilities help you share smarter.

Role‑Based Access Control (RBAC)

With Kaseware’s administrative controls, you can define granular permissions by user, role, team, or agency:

  • Limit Who Can View Certain Case Types (e.g., internal affairs, insider threat, executive protection).
  • Restrict Editing, Exporting, or Deleting Records.
  • Control Access to Specific Data Elements, like victim identities or informant details.

RBAC helps reduce the risk of unauthorized access while allowing investigators and analysts to work efficiently inside a single system of record.

Tenant and Team Segmentation

Kaseware supports multi‑agency and multi‑tenant deployments where partners share a common platform, but not a common database for everything.

  • Tenant‑Level Separation lets organizations maintain their own data boundaries while still collaborating through controlled channels.
  • Team‑Based Permissions allow fusion centers, joint task forces, and corporate security groups to share specific cases or data sets without opening everything else.

This design is ideal for fusion centers, regional task forces, and cross‑functional corporate operations that must balance joint work with strict confidentiality.

Custom Data Classifications and Clearances

Every organization has its own language for sensitivity: “law enforcement sensitive,” “restricted,” “HR confidential,” “legal hold,” and more.

Kaseware lets you define custom data classifications and associate them with access rules across:

  • Cases and Incident Reports.
  • Documents and Attachments.
  • Digital Evidence and Media.
  • Notes, Tasks, and Investigative Leads.

This ensures classification isn’t just a label—it actively governs who can see and act on each item.

Comprehensive Audit Trails

Every significant action in Kaseware is logged:

  • Who accessed which case or record?
  • What they viewed, added, or edited.
  • When they performed each action.

These audit trails support compliance, internal investigations, and post‑incident reviews. They’re also essential when defending your process to regulators, oversight bodies, or the courts.

Secure Case Collaboration & Evidence Management

Kaseware provides a single, integrated platform for secure case collaboration:

  • Structured Workflows to guide case progression.
  • Real‑Time Updates and Notifications.
  • Centralized Evidence Management with chain‑of‑custody tracking, barcode scanning, and assignment controls.

By keeping communication, documentation, and evidence inside one governed platform, you reduce the need to export files, send sensitive emails, or rely on untracked side channels. That’s how you protect sensitive investigations while still keeping everyone aligned.

Practical Steps to Strengthen Your Information Governance

Whether you’re in a fusion center, a federal agency, or a corporate security team, you can start tightening your information governance with a few practical steps:

Map Your Data Landscape

  • What types of cases do you handle?
  • Which data sets are most sensitive (PII, trade secrets, classified intel, HR data)?

Define Clear Classifications and Clearance Levels

  • Establish labels (e.g., “Restricted,” “Internal Only,” “Cross‑Agency Shareable”).
  • Tie each label to specific rules for access, retention, and sharing.

Design Your RBAC Model

  • Identify core roles (investigator, analyst, supervisor, prosecutor, HR, legal, etc.).
  • Decide what each role must see vs. what they shouldn’t see.

Leverage Tenant‑ and Team‑Based Segmentation

  • Use tenant‑based data sharing only where justified and documented.
  • For joint cases, create shared teams with explicit scopes rather than opening full databases.

Centralize Casework in a Governed Platform

  • Move away from spreadsheets, email threads, and shared drives for investigative work.
  • Use a dedicated investigations platform that logs access, enforces roles, and maintains a chain of custody.

Regularly Review Access and Audit Logs

  • Perform periodic audits to ensure access aligns with current roles and assignments.
  • Look for anomalous access patterns that may indicate misuse or insider threats.

Test Your Policies with Real Scenarios

  • Run tabletop exercises such as “If this insider threat case appears tomorrow, who should see what?”
  • Tune roles and classifications based on lessons learned.

Share Smarter with Kaseware 

Not everything needs to be shared, but what does need to move should flow quickly, securely, and with complete accountability.

Kaseware is built to help agencies and organizations around the world strike that balance: enabling powerful, secure case collaboration while embedding strong information governance into every case, record, and workflow.


If you’re ready to move beyond the “share everything” trap and design a smarter, safer approach to information sharing, schedule a demo with Kaseware and see how controlled collaboration can strengthen your investigations.