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.
To secure the U.S. bio-infrastructure, maintain global leadership in biotechnology, and safeguard American citizens from emerging threats to their privacy, the federal government must modernize its approach to human genetic and biological data.
To ensure an energy transition that brings broad based economic development, participation, and direct benefits to communities, we need federal policy that helps shape markets. Unfortunately, there is a large gap in understanding of how to leverage federal policy making to support access to capital and credit.
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.