Several noteworthy new hearing volumes on national security policy have recently appeared (all pdf). In most cases, the published volumes include valuable new supplementary material for the record.
“Examining the State Secrets Privilege: Protecting National Security While Preserving Accountability,” Senate Judiciary Committee, February 13, 2008 (published December 2009) (large pdf).
“Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do They Work, Are They Reliable, and What Did the FBI Know About Them?”, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2008 (published December 2009) (large pdf).
“Protecting National Security and Civil Liberties: Strategies for Terrorism Information Sharing,” Senate Judiciary Committee, April 21, 2009 (published January 2010).
“Chinese Interrogation vs. Congressional Oversight: The Uighurs at Guantanamo,” House Foreign Affairs Committee, July 16, 2009 (published December 2009).
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.