A new report from the Congressional Research Service summarizes for Congress what is publicly known about the two National Security Agency surveillance programs that were disclosed by Edward Snowden and reported last month by The Guardian and The Washington Post.
“Since these programs were publicly disclosed over the course of two days in June, there has been confusion about what information is being collected and what authorities the NSA is acting under. This report clarifies the differences between the two programs and identifies potential issues that may help Members of Congress assess legislative proposals pertaining to NSA surveillance authorities.”
The CRS report does not present any new factual material concerning the surveillance programs. But it identifies some outstanding questions about them — the word “unclear” is used several times — and it formulates topics for congressional consideration. See NSA Surveillance Leaks: Background and Issues for Congress, July 2, 2013.
Other new or newly updated CRS reports that Congress has not made publicly available include the following.
Ecuador: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations, July 3, 2013
China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, updated July 5, 2013
China-U.S. Trade Issues, updated July 3, 2012
China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States, updated July 3, 2013
U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues, updated July 2, 2013
Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, updated July 3, 2013
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.