The U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken unveiled an International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy on Monday, outlining the Biden administration's plan to engage the global community on various technological security issues. Blinken introduced this robust international cyber strategy while delivering a keynote at the RSA cybersecurity conference in San Francisco. The strategic blueprint outlined in the latest strategy displayed the federal government's multifaceted approach to engaging the global community on a wide array of technological security issues, aiming to foster collaboration and cooperation among allies, partners and stakeholders worldwide.

What’s at the Core of the International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy

At the heart of the plan lies the concept of "digital solidarity," characterized by mutual assistance to victims of malicious cyber activity and other digital harms. Digital solidarity entails collaborating on shared goals, capacity building, and mutual support to enhance security, resilience, self-determination, and prosperity. Against the backdrop of ongoing cyberattacks targeting U.S. allies by foreign actors like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, efforts focus on supporting allies and partners, particularly emerging economies, in harnessing the benefits of digital technologies while sustaining economic and development objectives. The strategy emphasizes alignment with international partners on technology governance, fostering strong partnerships with civil society and the private sector, and promoting cybersecurity resilience through diverse products and services from trusted technology vendors. Moreover, it underscores cooperative efforts to defend and advance human rights and build digital and cyber capacity for long-term resilience and responsiveness. The Department of State, in collaboration with other federal agencies, will advance digital solidarity through four key areas of action supported by three guiding principles:

1. Promoting an open, inclusive, secure, and resilient digital ecosystem.
2. Aligning rights-respecting approaches to digital and data governance with international partners.
3. Advancing responsible state behavior in cyberspace and countering threats through coalition-building and engagement.
4. Strengthening international partner digital and cyber capacity.

Efforts to forge digital solidarity will be reinforced by active participation in international fora to shape obligations, norms, standards, and principles impacting cyberspace and digital technology issues. Leadership in these venues is crucial to safeguarding U.S. interests and values in the evolving digital landscape. Recognizing the significance of digital diplomacy, the Department of State will lead interagency efforts to coordinate cyber and digital technology diplomacy to advance U.S. national interests and values in the coming decade.

Cybersecurity Threats from Nation States

The strategy addresses the malign activities of nations such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, condemning their exploitative use of technology for nefarious purposes, including hacking and espionage campaigns. It highlights concerns about these countries' efforts to undermine international regulatory frameworks and undercut U.S. technology manufacturers through state-sponsored subsidies. “Cyber criminals and criminal syndicates operating in cyberspace now represent a specific threat to the economic and national security of countries around the world,” the International Cyberspace and Digital Strategy said. “Cybercrime and online fraud cause significant harm to economic development, with small- to medium-sized enterprises and financial service providers especially at risk. According to one estimate, the global cost of cybercrime is estimated to top $23 trillion in 2027.”

AI Technology Governance

The landscape of AI technology governance is intricate, as per the latest strategy. While AI systems offer promising avenues for societal progress, the complexities of geopolitics further compound the challenges and uncertainties in their regulation and management. AI technologies hold immense potential to drive knowledge expansion, boost prosperity, enhance productivity, and tackle pressing global issues. However, the rapid proliferation of AI technologies also presents substantial risks and ethical considerations. These encompass a spectrum of concerns ranging from exacerbating inequality and economic instability to privacy breaches, discriminatory practices, and amplification of malicious cyber activities. Moreover, the dual-use nature of many AI applications poses challenges in ensuring that emerging technologies are not leveraged for nefarious purposes, including disinformation campaigns and military advancements lacking adequate human rights safeguards. Balancing risks and rewards requires safeguarding democratic values, human rights, and fostering international collaboration to harness AI's benefits while mitigating destabilizing impacts. The strategy also warns against complacency in critical technological domains, cautioning that failure to act could enable authoritarian states to shape the future of technology in a manner detrimental to U.S. interests and values. By advocating for concerted efforts to uphold a rights-respecting, open, and secure cyberspace, the United States aims to advance a vision of global governance that safeguards democratic principles and promotes innovation and prosperity.  Media Disclaimer: This report is based on internal and external research obtained through various means. The information provided is for reference purposes only, and users bear full responsibility for their reliance on it. The Cyber Express assumes no liability for the accuracy or consequences of using this information.

pAI is nearly impossible for us to escape these days. a href=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalinabryant/2024/03/14/how-ai-is-reshaping-social-media-platforms-and-5-tips-for-success/Social media/a companies, a href=https://www.wired.com/story/student-papers-generative-ai-turnitin/schools/a, a href=https://www.npr.org/2022/05/12/1098601458/artificial-intelligence-job-discrimination-disabilitiesworkplaces/a, and even a href=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/04/dating-apps-are-starting-crack/678022/dating apps/a are all trying to harness AI to remake their services and platforms, and AI can impact our lives in ways large and small. While many of these efforts are just getting underway — and often raise significant civil rights issues — you might be surprised to learn that America’s most prolific spy agency has for years been one of AI’s biggest adopters./p pThe National Security Agency (NSA) is the self-described a href=https://www.nsa.gov/leader/a among U.S. intelligence agencies racing to develop and deploy AI. It’s also the agency that sweeps up vast quantities of our phone calls, text messages, and internet communications as it conducts a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/five-things-to-know-about-nsa-mass-surveillance-and-the-coming-fight-in-congressmass surveillance/a around the world. In recent years, AI has transformed many of the NSA’s daily operations: the agency uses AI tools to help a href=https://perma.cc/97GE-4ULZgather/a information on foreign governments, a href=https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2022/10/intelligence-community-developing-new-uses-ai-perfconaugment/a human language processing, a href=https://www.wsj.com/articles/ai-helps-u-s-intelligence-track-hackers-targeting-critical-infrastructure-944553facomb/a through networks for cybersecurity threats, and even monitor its own analysts as they do their jobs./p pUnfortunately, that’s about all we know. As the NSA a href=https://perma.cc/97GE-4ULZintegrates/a AI into some of its most profound decisions, it’s left us in the dark about how it uses AI and what safeguards, if any, are in place to protect everyday Americans and others around the globe whose privacy hangs in the balance./p pThat’s why we’re suing to find out what the NSA is hiding. Today, the ACLU filed a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/nsa-ai-foia-complainta lawsuit/a under the Freedom of Information Act to compel the release of recently completed studies, roadmaps, and reports that explain how the NSA is using AI and what impact it is having on people’s civil rights and civil liberties. Indeed, although much of the NSA’s surveillance is aimed at people overseas, those activities increasingly ensnare the sensitive communications and data of people in the United States as well./p pBehind closed doors, the NSA has been studying the effects of AI on its operations for several years. A year-and-a-half ago, the Inspectors General at the Department of Defense and the NSA issued a a href=https://perma.cc/A4L3-EC4Kjoint report/a examining how the NSA has integrated AI into its operations. NSA officials have also publicly lauded the completion of a href=https://perma.cc/F4ZT-PNTBstudies/a, a href=https://perma.cc/EQB4-XDVCroadmaps/a, and a href=https://perma.cc/SXP8-4APAcongressionally-mandated plans/a on the agency’s use of novel technologies like generative AI in its surveillance activities. But despite transparency pledges, none of those documents have been released to the public, not even in redacted form./p pThe government’s secrecy flies in the face of its own public commitments to transparency when it comes to AI. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NSA and more than a dozen other intelligence agencies, has touted transparency as a core principle in its a href=https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/AI_Ethics_Framework_for_the_Intelligence_Community_10.pdfArtificial Intelligence Ethics Framework for the Intelligence Community/a. And a href=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-use-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence-federal-government/#:~:text=Certain%20agencies%20have%20already%20adopted,National%20Intelligence's%20Principles%20of%20Artificialadministrations/a a href=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/from both parties/a have reiterated that AI must be used in a manner that builds public confidence while also advancing principles of equity and justice. By failing to disclose the kinds of critical information sought in our lawsuit, the government is failing its own ethical standards: it is rapidly deploying powerful AI systems without public accountability or oversight./p pThe government’s lack of transparency is especially concerning given the dangers that AI systems pose for people’s civil rights and civil liberties. As we’ve already seen in areas like a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/how-face-recognition-fuels-racist-systems-of-policing-and-immigration-and-why-congress-must-act-nowlaw enforcement/a and a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/how-artificial-intelligence-might-prevent-you-from-getting-hiredemployment/a, using algorithmic systems to gather and analyze intelligence can compound privacy intrusions and perpetuate discrimination. AI systems may amplify biases already embedded in training data or rely on flawed algorithms, and they may have higher error rates when applied to people of color and marginalized communities. For example, built-in bias or flawed intelligence algorithms may lead to additional surveillance and investigation of individuals, exposing their lives to wide-ranging government scrutiny. In the most extreme cases, bad tips could be passed along to agencies like Department of Homeland Security or the FBI, leading to immigration consequences or even wrongful arrests./p pAI tools have the potential to expand the NSA’s surveillance dragnet more than ever before, expose private facts about our lives through vast data-mining activities, and automate decisions that once relied on human expertise and judgment. These are dangerous, powerful tools, as the NSA’s own ethical principles recognize. The public deserves to know how the government is using them./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-government-is-racing-to-deploy-ai-but-at-what-cost-to-our-freedom target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/0c811044641e2e113a33ba4134743c76-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-government-is-racing-to-deploy-ai-but-at-what-cost-to-our-freedom target=_blank The Government is Racing to Deploy AI, But at What Cost to Our Freedom? /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-government-is-racing-to-deploy-ai-but-at-what-cost-to-our-freedom target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOur FOIA request seeks to uncover information about what types of AI tools intelligence agencies are deploying, what rules constrain their use, and.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-government-is-racing-to-deploy-ai-but-at-what-cost-to-our-freedom target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div

The CIA is so known for its unabashed secrecy that, when it joined Twitter in 2014, its first tweet was: “We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.” This non-response response is known as a “Glomar,” and while the intelligence community likes to poke fun at how often they invoke it, this inane phrase has allowed the CIA to skirt meaningful transparency and accountability for decades.

In 1966, over the Johnson administration’s opposition, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), giving all of us the right to ask the government for documents and have the government respond, as it believed such access was a prerequisite to a functioning democracy. Soon after FOIA was passed, a Soviet nuclear submarine went missing somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, and the CIA took an early opportunity to undermine this new law.

The Soviet Union and the United States raced to locate the missing sub and extract the intelligence likely inside. But first, the U.S. needed to build a ship that could actually extract the sub once it was found — and the government wanted no one to know about it. The CIA contracted this mission out to Howard Hughes, a billionaire with little concern for government transparency, who told the media that the purpose of the ship (named the Hughes Glomar Explorer) was to extract manganese nodules from the ocean floor. Six years later, in 1974, the extraction began. Unfortunately for the U.S., the extracted sub broke into pieces and what the government most wanted was lost: the ship’s code machine and two nuclear missiles. Details of this secret, bungled extraction started to leak, inaccuracies and half-truths swirled, and people rushed to file FOIA requests hoping to answer the many outstanding questions.

Worried about the geopolitical consequences, and obsessed with controlling information about its activities, the CIA came up with a novel way to keep the mission secret without telling an all-out lie. The agency decided it would refuse to confirm or deny whether records about the Glomar Explorer’s mission existed, despite the mounting public evidence that they did. And so the “Glomar response” was born. And, in the case of the Glomar Explorer, it worked: Historians claim many documents remain hidden to this day.

Unfortunately, in the decades since the submarine debacle, and especially in the post-9/11 era, we’ve repeatedly seen the CIA use the Glomar response to evade responsibility. They have used it to claim they could not say whether they had information about the government’s use of drones to carry out lethal strikes overseas, and when asked about legal justifications for the verified extrajudicial killing of three U.S. citizens. They’ve even used it to side-step questions about whether they’ve spied on Congress.

We’re even seeing state agencies attempt to use the CIA’s non-response to circumvent local public records requests. For example, in 2017, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a public records request seeking documents regarding the NYPD’s monitoring of protesters’ social media activity and cell phones. The NYPD initially responded with a blanket statement that it could “neither confirm nor deny” whether such records existed, saying that even revealing the existence of records could harm national security. A New York court rejected this argument and ordered the NYPD to respond to the request in full.

And the CIA’s penchant for secrecy continues to expand, with the agency using Glomar to obstruct attempts to obtain records that would publicly shine a light on the agency’s failures and abuse, even when that abuse is well documented by the CIA itself and other sources.

Take, for instance, the CIA’s torture program. After the 9/11 attacks, the agency abducted dozens of Muslim men and boys, held them incommunicado, brutally tortured them, and denied the due process in sites around the globe. Once the program was exposed, 14 of the government’s “high-value detainees” were taken to the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, and detained at a notorious facility known as “Camp VII.” Attorney James G. Connell III, who represents Ammar al Baluchi, one of the men subjected to the CIA torture program and sent to Camp VII, filed a FOIA request with the CIA seeking information about the agency’s “operational control” over the facility. That “operational control” is hardly a secret: it was highlighted in the Senate Torture Report and in CIA and military commissions documents. But instead of processing Mr. Connell’s request, the agency issued what it called a “partial” Glomar response, producing three records, withholding a fourth in its entirety, and refusing to confirm or deny whether any other responsive records exist.

Given the extensive public record about the CIA’s connection to Camp VII, its refusal to acknowledge that it has responsive records both violates the law and defies common sense. That’s why we’re representing Mr. Connell in his appeal in federal court. To uphold its response, the CIA must demonstrate that it is logical or plausible that it has no responsive records in light of the entire record. That’s simply not possible here. We know this because there is an overwhelming amount of public evidence about Camp VII — from the Senate Torture Report, to court documents from the Guantánamo proceedings, to other documents the CIA itself released — that has left no doubt of CIA involvement. And yet, the CIA continues to avoid its legal obligations under FOIA through gaslighting and Glomar.

Connell v. CIA offers a real chance to not only break the CIA’s bad habit of using Glomar to evade transparency and accountability, but also issue a warning to other government agencies that hope to follow in the CIA’s footsteps by leaning into excessive secrecy.

pOver the last decade, California has built up some of the nation’s strongest driver privacy protections, thanks to the hard work of activists, civil rights groups, and elected leaders./p pOne law in particular, often called a href=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB34SB 34/a, prohibits police from circulating detailed maps of people’s driving patterns with the federal government and agencies in other states– a protection that has only grown more important with the end of iRoe v. Wade/i and the subsequent surge in abortion criminalization./p pBut dozens of California police departments have decided to defy the law, even after receiving a href=https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdfclear guidance/a from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the chief law enforcement officer in the state. Last month the ACLU of Northern California and our partners a href=https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/2024-01-31_letter_to_ag_bonta_re_sb_34_final.pdfsent Attorney General Bonta a letter/a listing 35 police agencies that have refused to comply with the law and protect driver privacy./p pWe should all be able to drive to a doctor’s office, place of worship, or political rally without being tracked and cataloged by police agencies. But for years now, police have used automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to record and track the movements of drivers on a previously unseen scale. These a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-plate-readers-are-being-used-record-americans-movementssystems/a allow police to collect and store information about drivers whose cars pass through ALPR cameras’ fields of view, which, along with the date and time of capture, can reveal sensitive details about our movements and, as a result, our private lives./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-plate-readers-are-being-used-record-americans-movements target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1120 height=788 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM.png class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt=A highway with fast moving cars. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM.png 1120w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM-768x540.png 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM-400x281.png 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM-600x422.png 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM-800x563.png 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screen-Shot-2024-02-13-at-12.35.20-PM-1000x704.png 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1120px) 100vw, 1120px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-plate-readers-are-being-used-record-americans-movements target=_blank You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans' Movements /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/you-are-being-tracked-how-license-plate-readers-are-being-used-record-americans-movements target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThe ACLU has long seen the danger ALPR surveillance poses, and working alongside communities on the ground, has fought to bolster California’s legal protections for driver privacy. For over a decade, we have conducted investigations, advocacy, and litigation focused on how police agencies use ALPR to track law-abiding drivers, amass hordes of sensitive information, and use it to harm people./p pIn the wake of a href=http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdfACLU’s groundbreaking report/a on ALPR across the US, a href=https://www.aclunc.org/blog/use-automated-license-plate-readers-expanding-northern-california-and-data-shared-fedswe called out/a police use of ALPRs in 2013 as a threat to driver privacy and warned that California lacked statewide driver privacy protections. In 2016, thanks in part to the advocacy of the ACLU and a href=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/success-sacramento-four-new-laws-one-veto-all-victories-privacy-and-transparencyallies/a, the California legislature passed a href=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB34SB 34/a, the law at issue today. In a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/documents-reveal-ice-using-driver-location-data2019/a we discovered Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) exploitation of ALPR-collected information to track and target immigrants in California and across the United States./p pFrom there, we took action to enforce California’s driver privacy protections. In a href=https://www.aclunc.org/news/california-activists-sue-marin-county-sheriff-illegally-sharing-drivers-license-plate-data-ice2021/a we sued Marin County, California for illegally sharing millions of local drivers’ license plates and locations with federal and out-of-state agencies, including ICE. The sheriff eventually agreed to comply with SB 34 as part of a a href=https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/lagleva-v-doyle-license-plate-surveillance#:~:text=In%20May%202022%2C%20the%20plaintiffs,54.settlement agreement/a, but we believed that many other California police agencies were still violating SB 34./p pWe rang the alarm again in the wake of the iDobbs /idecision overturning iRoe v. Wade./i Alongside our partners at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Southern California, we a href=https://www.aclunc.org/news/civil-liberties-groups-demand-california-police-stop-sharing-drivers-location-data-police-antisent letters to over 70 law enforcement agencies in California/a demanding they stop sharing people’s driving patterns with states that have criminalized abortion care. We also notified the attorney general’s office of these violations./p pFollowing our letters, the attorney general issued a href=https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdfinstructions/a to police across the state to follow SB 34’s plain text and cease sharing license plate information with state and federal agencies outside California. While some agencies have come into compliance, many police are digging in and refusing to follow the law. Police lobbyists have even a href=https://www.eff.org/files/2024/01/23/bulletin_reponse_letter.03_jrt_final.khb_.02.pdfasked/a the attorney general to withdraw his interpretation of the law./p pSimply put, the position touted by police agencies and their lobbyists puts Californians at risk. SB 34 is important because when police track and share the locations of law-abiding drivers, that information can easily be used to facilitate racist policing, a href=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexcampbell/the-ticket-machinepunitive fees/a, and the a href=https://www.ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2012/with-cameras-informants-nypd-eyed-mosquesdiscriminatory targeting/a of people in California and beyond. And, as a href=https://www.eff.org/files/2023/05/24/tracy.pdfour letters warned/a, when California shares ALPR information with authorities in states with anti-abortion or anti-trans laws, police and prosecutors gain new power to track and prosecute people who traveled to California to receive reproductive or gender-affirming care./p pWe should all be able to travel safely on the state’s roads without our movements being handed to authorities outside the state. That is why we have continued to push California police agencies to follow California’s driver privacy law. And it’s why we have supported localities a href=https://www.aclunc.org/blog/alameda-rejects-surveillance-deal-company-tied-icethat reject/a ALPR programs at odds with their values./p pIt is unacceptable that police agencies charged with enforcing laws are refusing to comply with this one. While we are pleased with Attorney General Bonta’s strong statement on SB 34, we urge the attorney general to use all available means at his disposal to ensure compliance. And rest assured, that the ACLU will continue fighting to enact and enforce protections that keep all of us safe, no matter where we go in the state./p piThis article was a href=https://www.aclunc.org/blog/californians-fought-hard-driver-privacy-protections-why-are-police-refusing-follow-themoriginally featured/a on the blog of the ACLU of Northern California./i/p div class=rss-cta__titleWe need you with us to keep fighting/diva href=https://action.aclu.org/give/now class=rss-cta__buttonDonate today/a/div