Back to news

July 24, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

Intelligence Agencies Release AI Ethics Principles

Getting it right doesn't just mean staying within the bounds of the law. It means making sure that the AI delivers reports that accurate and useful to policymakers.

By

ALBUQUERQUE — Today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released what the first take on an evolving set of principles for the ethical use of artificial intelligence. The six principles, ranging from privacy to transparency to cybersecurity, are described as Version 1.0, approved by DNI John Ratcliffe last month.

The six principles are pitched as a guide for the nation's many intelligence especially, especially to help them work with the private companies that will build AI for the government. As such, they provide an explicit complement to the Pentagon's AI principles put forth by Defense Secretary Mark Esper back in February.

“These AI ethics principles don't diminish our ability to achieve our national security mission,” said Ben Huebner, who heads the Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency at ODNI. “To the contrary, they help us ensure that our AI or use of AI provides unbiased, objective and actionable intelligence policymakers require that is fundamentally our mission.”

The Pentagon's AI ethics principles came at the tail end of a long process set in motion by workers at Google. These workers called upon the tech giant to withdraw from a contract to build image-processing AI for Project Maven, which sought to identify objects in video recorded by the military.

While ODNI's principles come with an accompanying six-page ethics framework, there is no extensive 80-page supporting annex, like that put forth by the Department of Defense.

“We need to spend our time under framework and the guidelines that we're putting out to make sure that we're staying within the guidelines,” said Dean Souleles, Chief Technology Advisor at ODNI. “This is a fast-moving train with this technology. Within our working groups, we are actively working on many, many different standards and procedures for practitioners to use and begin to adopt these technologies.”

Governing AI as it is developed is a lot like laying out the tracks ahead while the train is in motion. It's a tricky proposition for all involved — but the technology is evolving too fast and unpredictable to try to carve commandments in stone for all time.

Here are the six principles, in the document's own words:

Respect the Law and Act with Integrity. We will employ AI in a manner that respects human dignity, rights, and freedoms. Our use of AI will fully comply with applicable legal authorities and with policies and procedures that protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Transparent and Accountable. We will provide appropriate transparency to the public and our customers regarding our AI methods, applications, and uses within the bounds of security, technology, and releasability by law and policy, and consistent with the Principles of Intelligence Transparency for the IC. We will develop and employ mechanisms to identify responsibilities and provide accountability for the use of AI and its outcomes.

Objective and Equitable. Consistent with our commitment to providing objective intelligence, we will take affirmative steps to identify and mitigate bias.

Human-Centered Development and Use. We will develop and use AI to augment our national security and enhance our trusted partnerships by tempering technological guidance with the application of human judgment, especially when an action has the potential to deprive individuals of constitutional rights or interfere with their free exercise of civil liberties.

Secure and Resilient. We will develop and employ best practices for maximizing reliability, security, and accuracy of AI design, development, and use. We will employ security best practices to build resilience and minimize potential for adversarial influence.

Informed by Science and Technology. We will apply rigor in our development and use of AI by actively engaging both across the IC and with the broader scientific and technology communities to utilize advances in research and best practices from the public and private sector.

The accompanying framework offers further questions for people to ask when programming, evaluating, sourcing, using, and interpreting information informed by AI. While bulk processing of data by algorithm is not a new phenomenon for the intelligence agencies, having a learning algorithm try to parse that data and summarize it for a human is a relatively recent feature.

Getting it right doesn't just mean staying within the bounds of the law, it means making sure that the data produced by the inquiry is accurate and useful when handed off to the people who use intelligence products to make policy.

“We are absolutely welcoming public comment and feedback on this,” said Huebner, noting that there will be a way for public feedback at Intel.gov. “No question at all that there's going to be aspects of what we do that are and remain classified. I think though, what we can do is talk in general terms about some of the things that we are doing.”

Internal legal review, as well as classified assessments from the Inspectors General, will likely be what makes the classified data processing AI accountable to policymakers. For the general public, as it offers comment on intelligence service use of AI, examples will have to come from outside classification, and will likely center on examples of AI in the private sector.

“We think there's a big overlap between what the intelligence community needs and frankly, what the private sector needs that we can and should be working on, collectively together,” said Souleles.

He specifically pointed to the task of threat identification, using AI to spot malicious actors that seek to cause harm to networks, be they e-commerce giants or three-letter agencies. Depending on one's feelings towards the collection and processing of information by private companies vis-à-vis the government, it is either reassuring or ominous that when it comes to performing public accountability for spy AI, the intelligence community will have business examples to turn to.

“There's many areas that I think we're going to be able to talk about going forward, where there's overlap that does not expose our classified sources and methods,” said Souleles, “because many, many, many of these things are really really common problems.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/intelligence-agencies-release-ai-ethics-principles/

On the same subject

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - November 13, 2018

    November 14, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - November 13, 2018

    ARMY Barnard Construction Company Inc., Bozeman, Montana, was awarded a $324,422,299 firm-fixed-price contract for design and build of a pedestrian fence replacement project. Three bids were solicited via the internet with three bids received. Work will be performed in Yuma, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of April 1, 2020. Fiscal 2018 omnibus funds in the amount of $172,157,017 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas, is the contracting activity (W9126G-19-C-0007). SLSCO, Galveston, Texas, was awarded a $167,460,000 firm-fixed-price contract for border infrastructure design and build. Three bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Mission, Texas, with an estimated completion date of May 4, 2020. Fiscal 2018 omnibus funds in the amount of $167,460,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas, is the contracting activity (W9126G-19-C-0006). NAVY BAE Systems Jacksonville Ship Repair, Jacksonville, Florida (N00024-17-D-1007); Colonna Shipyards Inc., Norfolk, Virginia (N40027-17-D-1008); and Metro Machine Corp., Jacksonville, Florida (N40027-17-D-1009), are each awarded a $212,967,725 firm-fixed-price modification to their respective previously awarded multiple award contracts to exercise Option Year Two for the accomplishment of fixed priced delivery orders for docking and non-docking Chief of Naval Operations scheduled ship repair availabilities. Work will be performed in Mayport, Florida, and is expected to be completed by November 2019. No funding will be obligated at time of modification. The Southeast Regional Maintenance Center, Jacksonville, Florida, is the contracting activity. BAE Systems Jacksonville Ship Repair, Jacksonville, Florida (N40027-17-D-1001); Colonna Shipyards Inc., Norfolk, Virginia (N40027-17-D-1002); East Coast Repair and Fabrication LLC, Norfolk, Virginia (N40027-17-D-1003); Metro Machine Corp., Jacksonville, Florida (N40027-17-D-1004); North Florida Shipyards, Jacksonville, Florida (N40027-17-D-1005); and Tecnico Corp., Chesapeake, Virginia (N40027-17-D-1006), are each awarded a $42,641,520 firm-fixed-price modification to their respective previously awarded multiple award contracts to exercise Option Year Two for the accomplishment of fixed priced delivery orders for emergent and continuous maintenance availabilities. Work will be performed in Mayport, Florida, and is expected to be completed by November 2019. No funding will be obligated at time of the modification award. The Southeast Regional Maintenance Center, Jacksonville, Florida, is the contracting activity. Saifa Phommarine, doing business as Precision Dynamic,* Hayward, California (N6893619D0002); United Support Solutions – LMT Inc.,* Cedar Grove, New Jersey (N6893619D0003); ZYCI LLC,* Atlanta, Georgia (N6893619D0004); Modern Machine Co.,* Tehachapi, California (N6893619D0005); and Wutzler Machine Corp.,* Hemet, California (N6893619D0006), are each being awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts. The estimated aggregate ceiling for all contracts is $11,500,000, with the companies having an opportunity to compete for individual orders. These contracts provide for commercially available products manufactured from several different materials in different forms, shapes, sizes, complexity; specialty services for rapid processing, ranging from heat treating of manufactured items to paint and coating of manufactured items, and grinding services. These services are in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), China Lake's Applied Manufacturing Technology Division. Work will be performed at NAWCWD, China Lake, California; and at various awardee's facility sites in Hayward, California; Cedar Grove, New Jersey; Atlanta, Georgia; Tehachapi, California; and Hemet, California; and various customer sites to be determined on individual orders, and is expected to be completed in November 2023. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. These contracts were competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals as a 100 percent small business set-aside; five offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California, is the contracting activity. Detyens Shipyards Inc., North Charleston, South Carolina, is awarded a $10,046,484 firm-fixed-price contract for a 60-calendar day shipyard availability for the regular overhaul dry docking of USNS Joshua Humphreys (T-AO 188). Work will include general services; clean and gas free tanks; 01 level and tank deck hydro-blast and recoat; flight deck preservation and non-skid; stability test; main engine turbo charger overhaul; ship's service diesel engine overhaul; life boat davit blocks; recertify lifeboats and winches; fire and smoke damper service; dry-docking and undocking the vessel; propeller system maintenance; overhauling sea valves; underwater hull cleaning and painting; ground tackle inspection and preservation; simplex stern tube seals; cargo ballast system tanks overhaul; ram tensioner preservation; and repair and preservation of saddle winches. The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $11,054,691. Work will be performed in North Charleston, South Carolina, and is expected to be completed by March 17, 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount $10,046,484 will be obligated at the time of award. Funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured, with proposals solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. The Navy's Military Sealift Command, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N3220519C4013). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Stern Produce Co. Inc.,* Phoenix, Arizona, has been awarded a maximum $99,850,000 firm-fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for fresh fruits and vegetables. This is a 48-month contract with no option periods. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. Location of performance is Arizona, with a Nov. 12, 2022, performance completion date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps; and Department of Agriculture schools and reservations. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2022 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE300-19-D-P343). AIR FORCE The Boeing Co., Layton, Utah, has been awarded a $70,500,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee request for equitable adjustment contract modification to contract FA8214-15-C-0001 for the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Flight Test, Telemetry, and Termination program. This modification changes the specifications for the parts management plan, flight termination receiver, electromagnetic interference, cable qualification requirements, and antenna testing requirements. Most of the work is being performed in Huntington Beach, California; and work is expected to be completed by Jan. 29, 2021. No funds are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Nuclear Weapon Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contract activity. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1689528/

  • Turkey F-16 sale to proceed after Senate vote

    February 29, 2024 | International, Land

    Turkey F-16 sale to proceed after Senate vote

    The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a resolution to block the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey after Ankara approved Sweden's NATO accession.

  • As European defense evolves, here’s how industry is responding

    June 13, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

    As European defense evolves, here’s how industry is responding

    WASHINGTON — As priorities in Europe evolve, particularly with the threat of Russia growing more profound, industry partners are left to adapt. Defense News spoke to Kim Ernzen, vice president of land warfare systems in Raytheon Missile Systems, to find out the company's approach to meeting customer expectations. EU and NATO cooperation on defense is evolving. As they work out roles, is it challenging for industry? From an international or global footprint, we are looking to continue to expand in international marketspaces. As we look particularly to EU and NATO starting to cooperate more, the EU brings some capabilities to the table. Obviously NATO is typically backed more from the U.S. [But] it's how we merge the capabilities together so the fighting forces have what they need when they go into harm's way. From a U.S. defense industry perspective, we like to make sure we protect the latest and greatest. When we look to international, we work through the normal releasability channels to make sure we can release our products. I think there is going to be increased opportunity, because the threats are continuing to evolve. From a pure RMS perspective, we're well positioned to support [combatting] those threats. We continue to work closely not only with the U.S.-based customer, but through them, the international partners to look at the capabilities they may need. Missile defense remains a huge priority in Europe, but how have hybrid warfare tactics, particularly from Russia, influences defense strategies and as a result the investments? As we as a nation look at how to pivot from urban warfare of the last two decades to what many would consider more traditional warfare, but with added complexities of things like cyberattacks, EW. So now you go into overmatch capability, a long-range standoff capability. Army is focused on how to get long-range precision fires that supports the [combatant commands] in the international footprints, being able to protect the European front against advancing Russia threats. And it's got to have that standup capability, they also have to be able to see further. From a company perspective, we're involved in the PRSM [program] — the new Long Range Precision Fire competition between us and Lockheed Martin. And we're also working to enhance the sighting capability on the vehicle, so they can see farther and identity threats sooner. We see a lot of exercises in Europe. Does industry have enough of a seat at the table? We don't necessarily engage one-on-one with the exercising activities that go on; we'll get feedback through customer communities. This is something we talk with our customers about continually: the more we can be engaged, the more we can bring to bear, whether company investments, a spin on the product; the more we can partner with the customer community, sooner, the better it is for them and us as well. We just haven't necessarily always done that. We've seen a great deal of emphasis on increased defense spending of our European allies. Have you seen a bump up? Or if not, where do you see them focusing in on in terms of spending? We have seen a modest increase, particularly across the munitions fronts. Everyone [is looking] in the cupboard drawer, wanting to make sure they have the right stockpiles should they need to go into any engagement with the enemy. We're also continuing to see internationally more system integrated solutions. Not just coming forward with a product, but how a system would work and operate so they can be more nimble in the battlefield. That's a transition we're seeing. The FMS system can be painful to work through. Have their been improvements? We need to look at [whether we] can start converting more programs to direct commercial sales, depending on where we're at in a lifecycle of a product, and what it is we're trying to protect or throttle. FMS is a slow an laborious process. It hinders industry from capitalizing on market opportunities. The more we can change the paradigm and partner with the government side to do more [direct sales], the more they will benefit long term because they get the volume to drive down prices, and allow us to recoup funds to invests in future technology. But there are challenges, because each branches has organizations that support foreign military sales. There's a balance. As more and more countries seek indigenous capacities as well as a return on defense investments domestically, has the nature of partnership changed? Part of partnering with some of these countries involves offset requirements. Often as we start to partner with indigenous capable industries, it used to be ok to [offer up] basic machining. But there is more pull for being able to put high levels of noble work into these countries. Some are more advanced in capabilities, and as we look to partner, how to do we strike that balance, leveraging some technology they may bring to bear, with what we're trying to keep domestically and protected? It's an interesting paradigm. And a tipping point with how U.S. industry deals with going international. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/12/as-european-defense-evolves-heres-how-industry-is-responding/

All news