New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service on nuclear weapons policy and other issues of topical interest include the following.
Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 2, 2015 (See also the 2015 State Department compliance report released June 5, and reported in the New York Times on June 6.)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments, updated June 2, 2015
Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements, updated May 11, 2015
Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation, updated May 11, 2015
Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship, May 6, 2015
U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, updated June 4, 2015
Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015 (and see, relatedly, the profile of SEAL Team 6 in the New York Times on June 6)
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 2, 2015
Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 2, 2015
Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015
Senate to Mull Potential Endgame for Guantanamo, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 5, 2015 (and see also The Senate’s Guantanamo Bill: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, Just Security, June 8)
Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735 and S. 1376), June 3, 2015
A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense–Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015
The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress, May 11, 2015
Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, updated June 1, 2015
Honduras: Background and U.S. Relations, updated May 20, 2015
Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015
China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, updated June 1, 2015
Supreme Court Ruling Affects the Future of Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 5, 2015
Congressional Action on FY2016 Appropriations Measures, June 5, 2015
Supreme Court Issues Rare Unanimous Opinion in Religious Freedom Case, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015
Reported Office of Congressional Ethics Investigation Highlights Range of Ethics Considerations Surrounding Foreign Gifts Under Congressional Rules, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015
NFL Gives Up its Tax-Exempt Status, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015
FY2016 NDAA: A Comparison of House and Senate Provisions for Military Retirement Reform, CRS Insights, June 4, 2015
Reform of U.S. International Taxation: Alternatives, updated June 3, 2015
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Stages of Consideration, June 2, 2015
Federal Securities Law: Insider Trading, updated June 1, 2015
U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices, updated June 1, 2015
USA FREEDOM Act Reinstates Expired USA PATRIOT Act Provisions but Limits Bulk Collection, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 4, 2015
Commercial artificial intelligence tools have recently emerged that are able to produce police reports. If the resulting reports are inaccurate, incomplete or biased, or if the process leaks confidential information, this could undermine the criminal justice system and harm citizens.
Too often, affected patients, clinicians, and regulators cannot see how the system works, why a decision was made, or whether meaningful human oversight occurred.
Existing tools from other domains, such as existing robust public engagement processes in drug development, when applied to AI deployment can help strengthen public trust in these systems and enhance perceptions of their legitimacy and the decisions they produce.
With thoughtful policy action, it is still possible to build systems that are fair, transparent, and accountable, and to earn the public trust that will ultimately determine AI’s future. We hope policymakers are ready to act.