Crisis Management in the Intelligence Community
Last month, outgoing Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper issued new guidance on how the U.S. intelligence community should pivot in response to a crisis.
A “crisis” is defined here as “An event or situation, as determined by the DNI, that threatens U.S. national security interests and requires an expedited shift in national intelligence posture, priorities, and/or emphasis.”
The new guidance explains how that shift in intelligence posture is to be executed.
See Intelligence Community Crisis Management, Intelligence Community Policy Guidance 900.2, December 23, 2016.
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.
When properly structured — with specific numeric targets, secured financial obligations, independent monitoring, and meaningful enforcement — CBAs transform data center deals into durable community partnerships.