Following a closed House Armed Services Committee hearing on leaks yesterday, the Department of Defense issued a statement outlining its multi-pronged effort to deter, detect and punish unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
“The Department of Defense has taken a comprehensive approach to address the issue of national security leaks,” the statement said. “Personnel in all components are continuously working to protect classified information and identify those who do not uphold their obligations to protect national defense information.”
Several of the steps announced have previously been described and implemented, such as new guidance on protection of classified information and physical restrictions on use of portable media to download classified data. Other measures involve new tracking and reporting mechanisms, and the ongoing implementation of an “insider threat” detection program.
Although many of these changes originated in response to WikiLeaks-type disclosures of DoD information two years ago, their repackaging now might serve to diffuse congressional anger over more recent high-profile leaks, and to preempt more extreme legislative responses.
The new DoD statement does not admit any valid role for unauthorized disclosures under any circumstances.
To the contrary, the Secretary of Defense affirmed that the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is the “sole release authority for all DoD information to news media in Washington.”
In other words, DoD Public Affairs is the only legitimate source for defense news and information. It follows that freedom of the press means the unfettered ability of reporters to write about what the DoD Public Affairs Officer says.
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.