There has been a surge of publication of papers on official secrecy, national security classification and freedom of information in law reviews and other professional legal journals. Not all are equally original in their analysis or compelling in their conclusions, but they typically provide a scholarly perspective on matters of secrecy policy, and they often include valuable source citations.
Some of the more interesting new law review articles that have come to our attention are these (mostly pdf):
“Congressional Access to National Security Information” by Louis Fisher, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 45, No. 1, Winter 2008.
“Classified Information Leaks and Free Speech” by Heidi Kitrosser, University of Illinois Law Review, 2008, Issue 3.
“The Chilling of Speech, Association, and the Press in Post-9/11 America” (multiple papers and conference presentations), American University Law Review, June 2008.
“Government Lawyers and Confidentiality Norms” By Kathleen Clark, Washington University Law Review, 2008.
“Our Very Privileged Executive: Why the Judiciary Can (and Should) Fix the State Secrets Privilege” by D. A. Jeremy Telman, Temple Law Review, 2007.
“‘Nothing Is So Oppressive as a Secret’: Recommendations for Reforming the State Secrets Privilege” by Emily Simpson, Temple Law Review, 2007.
“Secrecy and Access in an Innovation Intensive Economy: Reordering Information Privileges in Environmental, Health, and Safety Law,” by Mary L. Lyndon, University of Colorado Law Review, Volume 78, Issue 2, Spring 2007.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
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.