The Department of Defense withdrew from its web site a DoD inspector general report that was critical of information security in the Missile Defense Agency’s ground-based missile defense system. Federal Computer Week reported on the removal of the document and posted the missing document on its own web site. See “DOD removes missile defense system report from Web site” by Bob Brewin, Federal Computer Week, March 20.
Several critical assessments of the “sensitive but unclassified” information control marking were discussed in “New Reports Raise Questions About Secrecy Stamps” by Rebecca Carr, Cox News Service, March 19.
The consequences of applying espionage statutes not only to leakers but also to unauthorized recipients of classified information were considered by Fred Kaplan in “Spies Like Us: Listening to leakers could land you in jail,” Slate, March 17.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.