Critics have pointed to laws that prohibited inter-agency sharing but, as the 9/11 Commission found, the law allows for far more sharing than goes on. It doesn't happen because of inter-agency rivalries, a reliance on outdated information systems, and a culture of secrecy. What we need is an intelligence community that shares ideas and hunches and facts on their versions of Facebook, Twitter and wikis. We need the bottom-up organization that has made the Internet the greatest collection of human knowledge and ideas ever assembled.
I agree with his points about culture change, but to deny the benefits of "value-added" technology is being overly dismissive of a "needed" capability. He even states in the paragraph quoted above (emphasis is mine) that we're working with outdated information systems. Many government agencies have their own Facebook now and can share information with other contacts in other agencies, but that hardly allows one fuse all the data available, then to connect the dots in a way that tells a story. The real challenge isn't sharing the information (we're much better than he gives the community credit for, but there is still much room for improvement), but the bigger challenge is making sense of the volume of information. We desparately need better information technology that helps analysts sort through volumes of data and then connect the dots (analytical support) and display it in a meaningful way. The culture that needs to change quickest is for each government agency/department and military service to stop storing their data in databases that are not accessible to the community of interest at large. Too much data resides in data banks that is not sharable outside their individual system, etc. The result is intelligence failures because the data was not available to the analyst who had a hunch, and if he/she had the all the data available and had the right analytical tools to quickly pull and sort through the relevant data, and then display it in a way that tells a story (visualize the data through link analysis and using temporal analysis), then we will have made a change that will actually result in our intelligence and law enforcement communities being more effective. Facebook and Twitter are only baby steps, they are far from being revolutionary enough to truly move us into the information age.

Another technology he may be bashing is technology to detect explosives and other potential weapons in airports. IMO it would be foolish not to invest in these technologies. Technology in many cases can do a better job at this and other tasks than humans, so why not use it? If it effectively reduces risk to a critical economic system (our air transportation system), why not invest in it? I'm sure if we did a cost comparison of what one attack costs when you consider all the ripple effects we would it find it a worthwhile investment.