A newly declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is creating ripples in US policy circles. The January 2022 report includes a 90-day retrospective on the acquisition and use of what is termed “commercially available information” by the intelligence community, a description of current policies in place regarding CAI practices, an internal contains recommendations for changes in
The report comes at the time of allegations of commercial acquisition of personal information by US government agencies.
I have previously written about the claim that access to the systems of the data broker community has become essential to modern law enforcement. Concerns about impeding the use of commercial data tools by law enforcement are reportedly a major obstacle in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s efforts to update the text of the U.S. Data Privacy and Protection Act ahead of its expected reintroduction. It’s becoming Earlier this week, a PoliticoPRO article quoted Commissioner Kathy McMorris Rogers (Republican, Washington) as saying, “We want to make sure law enforcement has the tools to do what they need to do.” was done.
ODNI is an independent agency that oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program, which funds the activities of the 17 agencies that make up the United States Intelligence Service. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haynes is also a principal adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council on intelligence matters related to national security.
Transparency and accountability in the intelligence community are core to the mission of ODNI, which was established in 2004 based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report. A newly released report outlines the Agency’s commitment to this task. As The Wall Street Journal explains, the report was written by Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden during the DNI Haynes confirmation hearing on how intelligence agencies use commercially available data. It was prepared in response to a request to clarify in detail whether the
Written in conversational style, the report calls for additional safeguards and, at a minimum, deep reflection within the intelligence community on the use of CAI. The report explains in a section titled “CAI Strengthens Government Powers”:
“Governments force billions of people to wear location-tracking devices at all times, to record and track most of their social interactions, and to perfectly record all of their reading habits. Automobiles, web tracking technology, the Internet of Things, and other technological innovations have had this effect without government involvement, and IC actively blinds this information. We cannot, but we need to understand how free access to CAI augments its power in ways that may exceed our capabilities, constitutional traditions and other societal expectations.”
The report, repeatedly citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Carpenter v. U.S. decision, draws attention to the qualitative and quantitative distinctions between CAI and traditional public information such as telephone directory listings and newspaper reports. . In particular, the openness of CAI appears to be the primary basis for the use of this data by intelligence agencies in accordance with law and internal guidance.
In this regard, the report highlights differences in internal agency guidance. For example, CIA policy states that “Information will be released only if it is made available to the CIA under generally generally applicable terms or conditions, such as through subscription or purchase.” But the Intelligence Division within the Pentagon added its own sheen to the policy, adding that the PAI is also information “commonly available to military personnel, even if they are not open to the general public.” .
In line with its mandate, the ODNI report does not directly analyze the legal implications of judicial rulings like Carpenter’s in the intelligence context, nor does it consider proposed legislative intervention. However, regarding internal policy changes within the intelligence community, he offers three recommendations:
- “First, the IC should develop a multi-layered process to catalog as much as possible the CAI captured by the IC elements. It’s a complex task that requires attention to.” IC cannot understand and improve how CAI is handled unless it understands what it is doing with CAI.
- Second, based on that knowledge, IC should develop a set of applicable standards and procedures for CAI to manage and require periodic reassessment of acquisitions and other decisions.
- Third, as part of and/or complementary to this set of standards and procedures, the IC should develop more precise confidentiality and privacy protection guidance for CAI. PAI is no longer a good proxy for anything but confidential information. Many CAIs are now so sensitive that ICs must develop more sophisticated approaches. ”
These recommendations also help regulators broaden their understanding of what artificial intelligence applications and other advanced technologies are considered biometric information, health information, sensitive personal information, and even general personal information. It was announced at a time when we were scrutinizing more and more about the possibility of needing. The rise of generative AI applications is also putting unprecedented pressure on the definition of public information. Do these evolutions mean future changes in the commercial and information communities alike?
H.Here’s what else I have in mind:
- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission release “Privacy and Data Protection Task Force”. At this week’s Democratic Technology Center event, FCC Chairman Jessica Rosenworsel announced a new task force led by current FCC Executive Director Royan A. Eagal. The task force will coordinate several important cross-agency projects, including updating agency data breach regulations, overseeing data breach investigations, tackling SIM switch fraud, and enforcing the newly enacted Secure Connections Act. It’s planned. Notably, Rosenworthel also suggested the FCC would take enforcement action against two mobile carriers based on their responses to inquiries about their use of geolocation data last year.
- a letter More than 60 civil society groups have called on the White House to continue to lead on AI civil rights issues. The letter said, “Despite growing evidence that automated systems often mirror and deepen pre-existing patterns of discrimination, AI can be used in high-stakes applications such as immigration, police, housing and employment. It focuses on the fact that it is being used. These bodies have a number of governmental responsibilities, including creating binding policies in the AI Bill of Rights through guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, and ensuring follow-through from sector-specific bodies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. calls for a series of concrete actions against , Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Justice, Department of Labor.
- Researchers are investigating the sensitivity of telemetry data in immersive technology applications. A new analysis by Berkeley researchers, in collaboration with augmented reality pioneer Louis Rosenberg, shows that simple motion data from head and hand telemetry sensors built into XR devices can be used to create surprises about users. It shows how it can help in infer sensitive information as much as possible. They argued that “what at first glance appears to be random variations in movement could possibly resemble DNA sequences, and XR users’ identities, biometrics, demographics, and even health information could all be traced back to the same virtual I will reveal it to anyone else in the world.”
upcoming events
Please send feedback, updates, and multi-tiered processes to cobun@iapp.org.
