The Department of Defense withdrew from its web site a DoD inspector general report that was critical of information security in the Missile Defense Agency’s ground-based missile defense system. Federal Computer Week reported on the removal of the document and posted the missing document on its own web site. See “DOD removes missile defense system report from Web site” by Bob Brewin, Federal Computer Week, March 20.
Several critical assessments of the “sensitive but unclassified” information control marking were discussed in “New Reports Raise Questions About Secrecy Stamps” by Rebecca Carr, Cox News Service, March 19.
The consequences of applying espionage statutes not only to leakers but also to unauthorized recipients of classified information were considered by Fred Kaplan in “Spies Like Us: Listening to leakers could land you in jail,” Slate, March 17.
Too often, affected patients, clinicians, and regulators cannot see how the system works, why a decision was made, or whether meaningful human oversight occurred.
Existing tools from other domains, such as existing robust public engagement processes in drug development, when applied to AI deployment can help strengthen public trust in these systems and enhance perceptions of their legitimacy and the decisions they produce.
With thoughtful policy action, it is still possible to build systems that are fair, transparent, and accountable, and to earn the public trust that will ultimately determine AI’s future. We hope policymakers are ready to act.
Procurement is not merely an administrative function—it is how AI enters government and the first line of defense for responsible AI in the public sector.