DNI Issues New Policy on Leak Damage Assessments
The Director of National Intelligence has issued new guidance on assessing damage resulting from the unauthorized disclosure of classified intelligence information to ensure that the damage assessments “are produced in an efficient, timely, consistent and collaborative manner.”
Leak damage assessments should be used iteratively and the lessons learned from them should be applied “to strengthen the protection of classified national intelligence and prevent future unauthorized disclosures or compromises.”
In addition to the facts and circumstances of the unauthorized disclosure, damage assessments should identify “any foreign involvement” in the case and “actionable recommendations to prevent future occurrences.”
Where foreign partners are affected by the leak, agency heads shall coordinate with DNI “prior to notifying a foreign government.” Also, “foreign governments normally will not be advised of any security system vulnerabilities that contributed to the compromise.”
See “Damage Assessments,” Intelligence Community Directive 732, June 27, 2014.
From use to testing to deployment, the scaffolding for responsible integration of AI into high-risk use cases is just not there.
OPM’s new HR 2.0 initiative is entering hostile terrain. Those who have followed federal HR modernization for years desperately want this effort to succeed.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.