The government’s acquisition of telephone records of tens of millions of Americans, as reported last week in USA Today, raises a host of thorny legal issues. In a new report (pdf), the Congressional Research Service performed a preliminary assessment of those issues.
“The factual information available in the public domain with respect to any such alleged program is limited and in some instances inconsistent,” the CRS authors caution, “and the application, if at all, of any possibly relevant statutory provisions to any such program is likely to be a very fact specific inquiry.”
Having said that, the CRS explains that there are several statutes that may be pertinent and that could conceivably entail civil or criminal penalties for telephone companies that provide information to the government without statutory authorization.
“This [CRS] report …summarize[s] statutory authorities regarding access by the Government, for either foreign intelligence or law enforcement purposes, to information related to telephone calling patterns or practices. Where pertinent, we will also discuss statutory prohibitions against accessing or disclosing such information, along with relevant exceptions to those prohibitions.”
The Congressional Research Service does not make its products directly available to the public. But a copy of the latest report was obtained by Secrecy News.
See “Government Access to Phone Calling Activity and Related Records: Legal Authorities,” May 17, 2006.
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.