Last summer, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper directed agencies that perform polygraph tests to include a “pre-test dialogue” about the need to prevent leaks of classified information as part of the polygraph interview process.
In a July 2012 memorandum to agencies, he said that the CIA’s polygraph program exemplified what he had in mind.
“During the pre-test discussion, CIA specifically asks whether an individual has provided classified information or facilitated access to classified information to any unauthorized persons, to include the media, unauthorized U.S. persons, or foreign nationals. The polygraph process is also used to identify deliberate disclosures,” DNI Clapper wrote. Other agencies that perform polygraph testing should follow procedures similar to CIA’s, he said.
“Aggressive action is required to better equip United States Government elements to prevent unauthorized disclosures,” DNI Clapper wrote.
The new policy was announced last June, but the implementing July 2012 memorandum was only released this week in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. See Deterring and Detecting Unauthorized Disclosures, Including Leaks to the Media, Through Strengthened Polygraph Programs, July 13, 2012.
A copy of the memorandum was also obtained by Jason Leopold of Truthout.org, who reported on it yesterday.
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.