A new “Information Sharing Strategy” (pdf) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence warns that traditional security practices that restrict disclosure of information have become counterproductive.
“The Intelligence Community’s ‘need to know’ culture, a necessity during the Cold War, is now a handicap that threatens our ability to uncover, respond, and protect against terrorism and other asymmetric threats,” the document declares.
The new Strategy defines information sharing goals and as well as near-term and long-term implementation objectives. Goals include uniform government-wide information policies, improved connectivity, and increased inter-agency collaboration.
Notably absent from the document is any role for the public in information sharing. The DNI Strategy has no place for the notion of an engaged citizenry that has intelligence information needs of its own.
A copy of the new Strategy, which has not yet been released, was obtained by Secrecy News. See “U.S. Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy,” February 22, 2008.
In December 2007, DNI McConnell issued Intelligence Community Policy Memorandum (ICPM) 2007-500-3 on “Intelligence Information Sharing” (pdf). A copy of the document, which has not been publicly released, is here.
Two related IC Policy Memoranda, which have been officially released, are these:
“Preparing Intelligence to Meet the Intelligence Community’s ‘Responsibility to Provide'” (pdf), ICPM 2007-200-2, December 11, 2007.
“Unevaluated Domestic Threat Tearline Reports” (pdf), ICPM 007-500-1, November 19, 2007.
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.