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.
The clearinghouse will also neutrally mediate the assignment of auditors to audits—strengthening independence, trust, and ethical governance across the AI ecosystem.
The potential implication of these evidence gaps becomes more consequential when you look at how institutions actually make decisions day to day.
Every new institution inherits something – existing incentives, existing staff, decades of prior investment that shaped what’s possible.
This is not the first time Google has agreed to censor imagery at the behest of governments, but be warned: obfuscation at this broad level poses a direct threat to the public’s ability to monitor and scrutinize government operations.