There are security weaknesses at many of the research facilities operated by the Department of Defense, according to a DoD Inspector General survey issued last year.
“All [military] Services identified compliance issues related to information assurance,” the IG report (pdf) found, based on a review of 37 out of 121 research, development, test and evaluations facilities.
“Classification marking requirements remain a problem at Army laboratories. The most common issues are a lack of declassification instructions, as well as failures to mark classified folders, media, and working papers properly…. The use of portable electronic devices in areas where classified information is discussed continues to be a problem for one-third of the Army laboratories inspected.”
On the plus side, “the Army clearly has made great strides during the past year by strengthening biological surety policy… especially in the areas of inventory management and accountability.” See “Summary Report of FY2009 Inspections on Security, Technology Protection, and Counterintelligence Practices at DoD Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Facilities” (redacted), DoD Inspector General Report 10-INTEL-06, May 21, 2010.
Current scientific understanding shows that so-called “anonymization” methods that have been widely used in the past are inadequate for protecting privacy in the era of big data and artificial intelligence.
China is NOT a nuclear “peer” of the United States, as some contend.
China’s total number of approximately 600 warheads constitutes only a small portion of the United States’ estimated stockpile of 3,700 warheads.
The Federation of American Scientists strongly supports the Modernizing Wildfire Safety and Prevention Act of 2025.
The Federation of American Scientists strongly supports the Regional Leadership in Wildland Fire Research Act of 2025.