Efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to assert itself as a viable member of the U.S. intelligence community have yielded a new strategic plan for homeland security intelligence and a management directive organizing the Department’s intelligence activity.
The new strategic plan is a handsome document, but largely devoid of significant content.
See “DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan,” January 2006 (3.3 MB PDF file).
And see “Intelligence Integration and Management,” DHS Management Directive 8110, January 30, 2006.
Relatedly, “DHS Has Not Implemented an Information Security Program for Its Intelligence Systems,” according to the title of a new DHS Inspector General report (flagged by BeSpacific.com).
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.
When properly structured — with specific numeric targets, secured financial obligations, independent monitoring, and meaningful enforcement — CBAs transform data center deals into durable community partnerships.