DoD Ops in a C4ISR-Denied Environment, and More
The Department of Defense prepares and trains for military operations in environments in which communications and surveillance are denied or obstructed, a new report to Congress says.
Combatant commanders “spend many man-hours… developing frameworks and procedures for using alternative methods, diversifying communications paths and media, and pursuing the ability to use distributed operations in a denied environment.”
The issue was summarily addressed in a mandatory report to Congress on “Joint Strategy for Readiness and Training in a Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Denied Environment.” The brief, unclassified report was transmitted to Congress in February 2014 and released under the Freedom of Information Act this week.
Somewhat relatedly, a declassified 1971 memorandum from the National Reconnaissance Office addressed the subject of “avoidance of coorbital intercept,” or anti-anti-satellite operations.
The subject was highly sensitive at the time. “Any action on our part which demonstrates the possibility that we possess the ability to evade a coorbital intercept… is potentially compromising of the great efficacy of U.S. satellite collection capability in this area.”
Unrelatedly, but notably, the Federal Judicial Center has published a compilation of “protective orders” that were issued by courts in national security criminal cases, including espionage trials and leak cases, over the past 15 years. See National Security Prosecutions: Protective Orders, April 2014.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.