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
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.