Route Fifty - All Content

Inside South Bend, Indiana’s journey creating a digital service team

Kaitlyn Levinson — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 16:24:05 -0400

South Bend, Indiana, is part of a rapidly growing number of state and local governments developing digital service teams to modernize and improve government solutions. Only two years into operation, the Midwest city’s team is quickly gaining ground to deliver results and stake its claim, one official says.

Digital service teams broadly aim to address challenges with and make enhancements to governments’ digital services, resources and other systems, Keith Wilson, talent engagement manager at U.S. Digital Response, recently told Route Fifty. Digital service teams are a particular priority for state and local leaders looking to drive government efficiency and effectiveness amid increasing constraints, like staff and budgetary shortfalls.

Nationwide, approximately 16 of 56 U.S. states or territories have established a digital service team, and there are at least 36 such organizations in federal, state and local governments as of late last year, according to Georgetown University’s Beeck Center.

But acquiring the staff, budget and mindset to create a digital service team can feel like an uphill battle amid governments’ competing priorities, Lucy Macfarlane, director of South Bend’s Division of Digital Services, told Route Fifty.

The city’s digital services division launched in 2024, but city officials began laying the groundwork for its creation more than a decade ago, she explained.

In an interview with Route Fifty, Macfarlane shared how South Bend officials gained leadership buy-in to create the digital services division, and how it has leveraged early momentum to solidify its long-term value.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

ROUTE FIFTY: Leading up to 2024, what did it look like for you and your team in terms of designing and developing the digital service division initiative?

LUCY MACFARLANE: The city’s digital service team is relatively new, but plenty of the work that we do and we embody has existed in the IT department in various ways over the years.

Around 2013, for example, civic innovation was kind of the thing. Organizations like Code for America were still young, and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg fostered a culture at the time to think differently. How could we solve this problem in a different way? I think Buttigieg and Code for America had quite an influence on each other. So in the early days, we as a department had quite an entrepreneurial spirit when we had that executive-level credibility and authority to solve digital problems.

We were also lucky in the state of Indiana that there were fewer legislative constraints around software and vendor procurement, so we were able to respond to solving a problem by either buying something or doing process improvement. I think the momentum that we were able to capitalize in those early years turned into political will later to sustain the digital services team.

ROUTE FIFTY: What were some of the team’s early projects that helped you gain leverage to progress forward?

LUCY MACFARLANE: What we really cared about prioritizing was evangelizing the sentiment, ‘Hey, we want to help with your personal productivity and alleviate that administrative burden that you are feeling.’ We wanted to prove our value and prove we exist. The digital service division’s first push was a lot of hacking stuff together, like engineering a digital form to automatically push responses to a SharePoint list and send email notifications to staff members.

We realized the hacking approach could be operationally really difficult to manage later, so we eventually shifted to accepting more resident-facing work. We weren't really feeling like we were capitalizing on impact with those kinds of internal things, but then we felt really good when we started touching like the resident side of stuff. The last few years, we’ve prioritized web accessibility and resident touchpoints, such as enhancing digital forms.

The hacking approach felt worth it because our end user has no idea what's happening behind the curtain, but they're just getting the product that they want — and that actually ended up being most of what people wanted from us, especially internally.

ROUTE FIFTY: How does the city’s digital services team approach other officials and leaders to get buy-in for the division, particularly when it comes to budget support for your mission?

LUCY MACFARLANE: Now, when we’re talking about our work or we’re talking with internal partners about digital transformations or digital experiences, the first thing I tell them is if you are doing something in your daily work, and copying and pasting a lot in a spreadsheet is the bane of your existence, that should be a red flag to give the digital services team a call. We might be able to help you identify what the problem is that’s burdening you and support you with some workflow automation or just general process improvement. The team also serves on behalf of residents to improve their experience, so we’re at this lovely crux of both of those things because they go really well together.

The best example is our city’s approach to website management. That responsibility sat across many people in the IT department, so there wasn’t a clear owner, and it degraded the user experience, the technical robustness of the tool and its security. I think our former Chief Innovation Officer Denise Reidl, who served from 2019 to 2025, saw the writing on the wall around capacity constraints and had to prove we couldn’t do this work without the dedicated resources to do it. She worked with other agency directors and U.S. Digital Response to determine the specific roles and responsibilities that a digital services team would assume, which helped officials communicate clear benefits and costs to operating a digital service team.

ROUTE FIFTY: While we’re talking about digital services in government, can you share how new and more advanced technology, like artificial intelligence, is impacting the mission or capacity of your division?

LUCY MACFARLANE: I think just to put it really simply, we see artificial intelligence right now as like a tool in our tool belt, because part of our like mantra as a team is to be solution agnostic. We always approach a problem by trying to identify the problem accurately, and then when we take a step back we might say, ‘Oh, this combination of things might help us solve this problem. Sometimes it includes agentic development tools, and sometimes it doesn't.’ We try to be as not prescriptive as possible in our solution design, because we want to meet the problem where it is.

Of the same token, agentic AI development is so appealing and it is so wonderful. Before it felt like we needed four more solutions and service designers when we were hacking stuff together because there were just so many moving parts, but now it feels like less of a burden now and we can actually kind of like do a little bit more with less. We’ve been able to flex our muscles around custom work and custom-built applications, which is very exciting and makes the work feel more sustainable.

It feels like we are slowly shifting into a product shop, which I think is very different from the original intention of the team, which is kind of crazy. It's been less than two years.

ROUTE FIFTY: What’s in store for South Bend’s digital services division moving forward? What other projects and broader initiatives are coming down the pipe in the next year or so?

LUCY MACFARLANE: Myself, my counterpart on the application side of the team, our digital integrations development director and our chief digital officer are actually setting aside time next week to kind of like have a fun conversation about that and how we will manifest our own kind of destiny.

One really cool thing that we’re going to wrap up the year around is testing the user experience of a beta redesign of the city’s website, which launched a few weeks ago, including content strategy and navigation. then we might have a relaunched website in Q1 or Q2 of next year, which is very exciting and I think kind of a huge deal for a small team in about three years.

Our department also won the Bloomberg Mayor's Challenge Award for this year, which is a $1 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. With the grant, we're doing really cool work with predictive analytics and machine learning in partnership with the University of Notre Dame. Focusing on agentic development, we're going to launch a case management solution for our casemanagers and our customer success team in early Q4.

]]>

How cyber ranges can help build trust in AI

Chris Teale — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 13:00:00 -0400

Earlier this summer, the Ohio Cyber Range Institute at the University of Cincinnati hosted a cybersecurity defense exercise called Ohio Cyber Guardian 2026.

The four-day exercise brought together the Ohio National Guard, state agencies, the private sector and more to simulate cyberattacks and how to defend against them. The effort comes as an increasing number of states are turning to cyber ranges to build cybersecurity awareness among their employees and agencies and build their talent pipeline, and often work with higher education institutions to do so.

But artificial intelligence is looming over such efforts, with cybersecurity professionals concerned at how it will change the game both from an offensive standpoint — giving hackers and other bad actors more tools and the ability to attack harder and faster — as well as defensively.

Given that collision between AI and cybersecurity, speakers at this week’s Billington Cybersecurity Summit in Washington, D.C. said cyber ranges can play an important role in helping build trust in AI among government leaders and the private sector.

“This might be a scenario where we'll run some executives through some AI scenarios, and then maybe we'll have a separate exercise with the technical team, and maybe start to introduce some AI-enabled attacks and see how they respond,” Dan Waddell, a partner in IBM’s federal cybersecurity practice, said during a panel discussion. “Then maybe the next time, we combine the two teams and see how they react. AI is still a relatively new concept, particularly with a lot of our customers in the federal government. It's really about trust, and cyber ranges can help improve that trust through that safe environment.”

Cyber ranges offer a secure, virtual and interactive environment where representatives from the public sector, private sector, academia and elsewhere can spend time simulating attacks on their IT networks, with that simulation tweaked to include a reflection of the systems they actually operate with. Ranges also offer a place to research new attack types, and how to defend against them.

Given that reliance on scenarios in the range, some speakers said AI’s first role could be to make the range more responsive and customized. Simon Vernon, a certified instructor and principal technical architect at the SANS Institute, a cybersecurity education company, said ranges can often feel “static.”

AI could change the range itself, customize the training and make it more specific and granular, helping participants better understand their goals and achieve their objectives.

Having AI respond as part of a cyber range is “pretty groundbreaking,” said Ben Abramovitz, director of cybersecurity at the Maryland Public Service Commission.

The goal is to “make teams better,” said Zach Tudor, associate laboratory director for national and homeland security at Idaho National Laboratory. Agentic AI, he said, could play a role in instructing participants, correcting them and giving new examples, although panelists all agreed that reality is still a long way off.

For colleges and universities that host cyber ranges, it means an even greater reliance on them, especially if they also run a security operations center for localities that helps mitigate threats in the real world.

Phil Stupak, senior director of advocacy at the cybersecurity membership and training nonprofit ISC2 and a former assistant national cyber director at the White House, said that reliance and the opportunities it will provide students will make them even more attractive to potential employers.

“You couple [real-world experience] with certificates so that you can demonstrate that they actually know what they're doing, and now they are a top hire,” Stupak said in an interview at the conference. “They're going to beat out everyone with a college degree; they're going to beat out people who only have an entry-level certification because they have experience and certification put together.”

Making sure the education and lessons learned from the time spent on the cyber range stay with participants is also critical, Abramovitz said, and that can be made harder as AI has made retaining information more challenging.

“You have to make sure the training sticks,” he said.

And that training has to be constantly evolving to meet the new threats, whether they be from AI or elsewhere. Tudor said that will first involve defining what a cybersecurity team “is and does and should do,” then considering how that can be measured. AI can help with measuring a team’s progress, so they can adapt, but he warned the path ahead remains challenging.

“How do you measure something when it’s evolving?” Tudor asked.

]]>

How 9/11 changed the way America surveils its citizens

Amanda Watford, Stateline — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by Stateline.

Twenty-five years after 9/11, the surveillance infrastructure built and expanded in its aftermath has become part of a far larger digital ecosystem — producing tools that can collect and analyze information on a scale unimaginable in 2001.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, did more than reshape the nation’s approach to terrorism. They changed the architecture of American intelligence and policing. They expanded how government agencies collect, share and analyze information, and brought national security tools deeper into ordinary law enforcement.

The infrastructure built in the attacks’ aftermath has proved remarkably durable. Joint terrorism task forces and fusion centers brought federal, state and local agencies into closer intelligence-sharing networks. New laws expanded the government’s ability to obtain information. And police departments acquired technologies that once belonged largely to the realm of national security.

But the expansion of surveillance did not go uncontested. Civil liberties groups warned that the new powers could erode Americans’ privacy and constitutional protections, while many Americans accepted expanded government surveillance as a necessary tradeoff for safety in the aftermath of the attacks.

The country also entered a period of heightened scrutiny for people perceived as foreign or potentially threatening — with American Muslims and immigrant communities bearing a particularly heavy burden.

Then came the digital revolution.

In the days after 9/11, we all realized that what the government did in the next few days to respond could have lasting implications for the civil liberties of Americans.
– Gregory Nojeim, director of the security and surveillance project at the Center for Democracy & Technology

Americans began carrying smartphones, broadcasting their lives on social media and generating enormous amounts of commercially collected data. Police gained access to license plate readers, networks of cameras, cellphone location information and other technologies capable of tracking people and mapping their movements.

Now, artificial intelligence is adding another layer: systems that can sift through those vast stores of information, connect previously separate databases and generate analyses in seconds.

Some surveillance and privacy experts say that the amount of information available to the government — and its ability to make sense of it — has fundamentally changed since 9/11.

That has taken on new urgency as surveillance systems have moved further into everyday life. Automated license plate readers can track where people drive. Facial recognition can help identify people in crowds. Commercial data can reveal where and how people live and travel. And increasingly, artificial intelligence can analyze and connect these streams of information at a speed no human investigator could match.

Those capabilities have raised concerns among some experts and advocates about how surveillance could be used to monitor protests, track immigrants and identify people seeking reproductive healthcare.

Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the security and surveillance project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, described the post-9/11 era as a “perfect storm.”

“That storm is both the expansion of the legal powers that have been conferred on the government to collect and share information, combined with the advance of technology, which has given the government more tools to collect information from more people in more contexts,” Nojeim said.

From intelligence silos to everyday policing

In the months after 9/11, officials sought to fix a critical weakness exposed by the attacks: Intelligence that could have helped uncover the plot was held across government agencies that failed to connect or share it effectively. The response was a sweeping effort to tear down those silos and build a more integrated intelligence network.

Federal, state and local agencies quickly expanded intelligence-sharing, and the government established and expanded networks designed to move information across traditional institutional boundaries. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces brought together federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence personnel.

Fusion centers, generally run by state and local governments with federal support, became another part of the post-9/11 intelligence architecture, with at least one operating in every state. The centers serve as intelligence hubs where law enforcement agencies can share information, analyze data and flag potential threats across jurisdictions.

Katie Kinsey, chief of staff and tech policy counsel at the Policing Project at the NYU School of Law, said the original goal was straightforward — prevent another terrorist attack.

Over time, some fusion centers began supporting investigations and enforcement involving lower-level crimes, Kinsey said. Local police departments also developed their own versions of centralized intelligence hubs, often called real-time crime centers, that can integrate information from cameras, automated license plate readers and other surveillance systems.

David Viola, an adjunct professor at the Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and author of “You Have Unleashed a Storm: New York City’s Descent into Chaos During America’s Most Explosive Era of Radical Violence,” said the post-9/11 period also marked a major shift in the kind of information available to investigators.

Before the attacks, he said, intelligence work relied heavily on traditional investigative techniques. Today, digital records can provide information about where people go, with whom they communicate, what they purchase and what they post online.

But technology is only part of the transformation. Viola said the institutional relationships forged among local, state and federal authorities after 9/11 are among the period’s most lasting legacies.

“These are institutions that have cemented the close coordination between state, local, federal, tribal authorities in the past 25 years, and they’re going nowhere, for better or worse,” he said.

Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was directing lobbyists in Washington, D.C., on 9/11. His office was evacuated as officials tried to determine whether the U.S. Capitol was the target of another hijacked plane.

In the aftermath, he said, civil liberties advocates understood that decisions made in response to the attacks could extend far beyond the immediate crisis.

About a month after the attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law, dramatically expanding the federal government’s ability to collect information and conduct surveillance in terrorism investigations. Some of its most sweeping surveillance authorities were later curtailed or allowed to expire, but the law helped establish a new framework for national security surveillance that continues to shape how Americans’ data is collected and monitored.

“In the days after 9/11, we all realized that what the government did in the next few days to respond could have lasting implications for the civil liberties of Americans,” Nojeim said.

The data economy

The growth of surveillance after 9/11 also coincided with a separate transformation that would make those systems far more powerful. Americans were beginning to carry smartphones, use social media and spend more of their lives online, generating enormous amounts of digital information that did not exist before.

Kinsey, of the Policing Project, said that created a new dynamic for law enforcement. Agencies had expanded their ability to collect and share intelligence after 9/11, while technology was producing more information about people than ever before. Much of that information was collected by private companies for commercial purposes, but it could also become available to law enforcement, either through data purchases or when companies turned information over to authorities.

At the same time, Kinsey said, Americans have become accustomed to giving up personal information without necessarily understanding how it is collected or what can ultimately be done with it.

The things that we would have taken for granted as forms of privacy we can all expect have just completely vanished.
– Jessica Katzenstein, a cultural anthropologist and assistant professor at Arizona State University

“There’s still a lack of awareness because there’s a lack of transparency on the part of law enforcement, but also on the part of these private tech companies about what they are actually collecting on us, and then what they’re doing with that information,” Kinsey said.

That lack of visibility extends beyond the cameras and other surveillance tools people can see. Personal data can be combined and shared behind the scenes, allowing the government to draw conclusions from pieces of information that may seem insignificant on their own.

“Never in human history has the government had more information about what we are doing, who we are doing it with, what we like to buy, and indeed what we are thinking about, than ever before,” said Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Jessica Katzenstein, a cultural anthropologist and assistant professor at Arizona State University, said technological advances have also changed what Americans consider normal, making forms of live, mass surveillance that once seemed dystopian increasingly commonplace.

“The things that we would have taken for granted as forms of privacy we can all expect have just completely vanished,” she said.

That normalization can make surveillance difficult to roll back once law enforcement agencies have invested in the technology and incorporated it into their work, she said.

“Once you have a sense of both a need and access to tools, it will be very, very difficult to get you to give that up,” said Katzenstein, who also studies police in the U.S. as an ethnographer.

Communities living with the consequences

The expansion of surveillance after 9/11 also had consequences that were not felt equally. American Muslims faced heightened scrutiny in the name of national security, and advocates say the surveillance practices and assumptions that emerged in that period have since affected other communities of color.

Haris Tarin, vice president of policy and programming for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who also spent more than a decade working in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said many American Muslims experienced the aftermath of 9/11 as a “dual attack.”

“We were attacked twice. First by the terrorists, we were attacked for being Americans, and then we were attacked by our own government and people within our own country, where we were cast under suspicion, and that has continued for the last 25 years,” Tarin said.

Tarin said that suspicion soon extended beyond American Muslims to other communities.

“After 9/11, American Muslims were easy to go after because there was not much political consequence,” he said. “But it just didn’t stop with American Muslims. We’ve seen that now extend to immigrants. We’ve seen that now extend to anti-Semitism. We’ve seen that now extend to anti-Black hate.”

Lia Nitake, senior director of technology, telecommunications and media policy at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, said the consequences have been particularly pronounced for communities of color. She said the heightened surveillance of people based on their race, religion or other aspects of their identity has created a climate of fear.

“In a lot of ways, these surveillance measures have also eroded this idea that everyone should have an equal right to privacy,” Nitake said.

Both Tarin and Nitake said the growing use of artificial intelligence raises new concerns about how those disparities could be reproduced or amplified. Police agencies could increasingly rely on technology to monitor communities rather than invest in relationships with them, Tarin said.

“In the AI age, it will be easy for government agencies and law enforcement agencies to use technology to surveil and not do the hard work of community policing and engaging communities,” he said.

Stronger surveillance systems

Police departments nationwide are already using AI-assisted tools to analyze evidence, search databases, draft reports and translate conversations in real time.

North Carolina Central University Police Chief Robert Gaddy, who previously served as a Durham police officer for more than 25 years, sees the technology as a practical response to the growing demands on modern policing.

Information that once had to be gathered and shared manually can now flow through centralized digital systems, while AI-assisted cameras and license plate readers help officers identify suspects, gather evidence and solve crimes.

“If I can take this technology and at least give that (victim’s) security back to them by solving this crime, it’s worth every every bit of it,” Gaddy said.

Gaddy said technology can also help departments facing staffing shortages. But he said its use requires clear limits and oversight, including rules governing how officers access and share information and audits to identify potential misuse.

Still, some experts and advocates worry that newer AI-assisted systems could make existing surveillance infrastructure significantly more powerful by connecting databases that previously operated separately. Some tools allow officers to search multiple databases using natural-language prompts and generate summaries, raising questions about accuracy, missing information and how much officers may rely on the results.

Nojeim, of the Center on Democracy & Technology, said those concerns become especially serious when AI is used in decisions that can affect someone’s liberty.

“We all know from our work or our play with AI that it can make mistakes and that it hallucinates,” he said. “Now we’re in a world where an AI hallucination can be the thing that set off an investigation that landed you in jail inappropriately.”

Modern law enforcement agencies have access to more information than any human could reasonably process, said Viola, the adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. AI could help investigators identify connections that might otherwise be missed. But Viola said those capabilities also come with risks.

“These are very capable tools that can be used to great effect for the betterment of American society and safety,” Viola said. “They can also be used for ill effect if there is an administration who wants to use them for such activity.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

]]>

AI safety advocacy group launches new state-level effort

Alexandra Kelley — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:00:00 -0400

Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group Americans for Responsible Innovation announced a new state-level advocacy policy initiative Thursday to push for responsible AI guardrails.

In an announcement first shared with Nextgov/FCW, ARI said it is bringing on new staff to support the state-level AI policy advocacy branch, which will work to address frontier AI risks and threats to workers and families across all 50 states and prioritize the public interest when interfacing with lawmakers as more tech industry regulatory proposals develop.

“To succeed in passing the guardrails necessary to sustain AI innovation while protecting the public interest, the state arena can no longer be treated as a secondary front," said ARI President Brad Carson in a press release. “Industry actors understand this, which is why they are investing heavily and moving fast.”

ARI’s new state policy platform will begin by identifying emerging bills across the nation and offering policy expertise to state lawmakers while pushing the group’s core philosophy: codifying responsible AI guardrails at a legislative level.

“A proactive state operation can help responsible legislators get ahead of industry campaigns, produce durable and constitutionally sound law, and demonstrate that the responsible AI community is a serious player in every arena where the future of AI governance is being decided,” Carson said.

ARI’s state expansion comes as federal regulators continue to mull over potential avenues to achieve federal preemption of state and local artificial intelligence laws. Notably, Reps. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduced their FRONTIER Act in July that carves out select lanes where states cannot regulate, including imposing “substantive obligations” on AI model developers related to model catastrophic risk-transparency, third-party auditing and incident reporting.

A discussion draft of the bill initially included a three-year preemption on states, which selectively targeted the lanes related to the deployment and use of AI.

The draft version of the preemption was criticized as too broad and was narrowed in scope in the FRONTIER Act to cover catastrophic risk reporting and independent third-party safety verification. It also gave the federal government the ability to have jurisdiction over pausing AI development as needed.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to clarify the details of the FRONTIER Act.

]]>

States can spend leftover BEAD funds to connect missed locations, NTIA says

Chris Teale — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 13:00:00 -0400

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced last week a second round of funding for its massive broadband program, to connect locations missed the first time around.

NTIA said states could apply for supplemental funding under its Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program to connect additional locations that may not have been eligible for funding before. Now, states can apply to connect locations that have been defaulted on in other federal or state broadband programs; locations that were wrongly removed during the NTIA’s challenge process; and any locations that have come to light in newer versions of the Federal Communications Commission broadband map.

States have 30 days after receiving a new list of eligible locations from NTIA to review it and determine which locations they want to use supplemental funding for, with a shortened challenge process to follow. NTIA will then take final versions of those lists and use a formula to determine the most amount of money a state will receive to remedy those locations, then states must submit a full plan for approval.

“Congress designed the BEAD program to be the final federal broadband deployment program, ensuring universal broadband availability for America,” Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth said in a statement. “Thanks to [Commerce] Secretary [Howard] Lutnick’s Benefit of the Bargain reforms, NTIA achieved $21 billion in savings, which we can now use to address newly identified locations that may lack service. Through this targeted use of funding, we are ensuring that we close the digital divide once and for all while also protecting taxpayer dollars.”

The fate of leftover BEAD dollars has been up in the air for some time and the subject of much speculation. This announcement from NTIA goes some way to explaining what will happen to the $21 billion the agency says it saved from the original $42 billion set aside for the program in the 2021 infrastructure law after its various changes. But there is more to come on that front. In announcing this next round of funding, NTIA said other "non-deployment" uses "will be addressed in subsequent guidance."

There have already been various suggestions on how to spend that money, including placing it in a reserve fund to help mitigate defaults or rising costs, or spending it in areas like digital literacy or network resiliency. Roth had said in March that NTIA was “taking additional time to review the comments and finalize our approach to ensure these funds are spent as efficiently and responsibly as possible.”

Some groups said this first effort to spend the leftover funds is a positive step forward after months of uncertainty, right on the heels of Illinois being the final state to have its plan approved by NTIA.

"Every unserved home and business deserves a broadband connection, and this notice gives states a new path to find the locations the first round of BEAD missed,” said Revati Prasad, executive director of the nonprofit Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, in a statement. “We support NTIA's effort to true up the FCC's maps and ensure funding follows the households and small businesses still waiting for service.”

But Prasad went on to note the importance of getting everyone connected, and that closing the digital divide is not just about infrastructure, but about ensuring people have the appropriate skills to take full advantage of the internet.

“Congress recognized that universal connectivity requires investment in both the physical and human infrastructure of broadband,” he continued. “We look forward to learning how states will be able to use BEAD funds to connect apartment buildings and other multifamily housing where low-income residents live, and to support adoption efforts that turn a new connection into one people actually use. After so much delay, we urge NTIA to get Digital Equity Act funding flowing, so states and trusted partners have the resources to help people make meaningful use of the internet.”

Others went further and said they opposed NTIA’s latest funding announcement. Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said the agency is “failing rural America” and said progress on buildout has been slowed by “delayed implementation, shifting guidance, cost constraints and unrealistic funding assumptions.”

“Directing further investment under the same misguided approach will not deliver universal connectivity to rural America,” Matheson continued in a statement. “NTIA must allow flexibility for cost increases created by program delays, align funding levels with the actual cost of deploying broadband infrastructure in America’s hardest-to-reach communities and remove fatally flawed pole attachment rules that clearly break from long-standing federal policy. Without correcting course, BEAD risks leaving rural America behind.”

]]>

Luminis cybersecurity incident highlights ‘concerning’ rise in attacks on healthcare

Danielle J. Brown, Maryland Matters — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Maryland Matters.

Cyberattacks on the healthcare industry, like the one that hit an Anne Arundel County hospital last week, are becoming increasingly common and state-level policymakers should prepare for even more, an expert said Tuesday.

“I think it’s incumbent upon people who have influence over policy, especially at the state level, to start thinking about what the state can do to improve coordination, to improve readiness, to make sure that when the inevitable happens we are as prepared as we possibly can be,” said Benjamin Yelin. He is the public policy and external affairs program director with the University of Maryland, Baltimore’s Center for Cyber, Health and Hazard Strategies.

His comments come just days after Luminis Health facilities last week announced a “cyber incident by an unauthorized criminal actor” that disrupted certain medical appointments and services. Luminis hospitals remained open while an investigation into the attack continues, but some of their systems were nonoperational, which could impact appointments and services.

“As a result of the incident, certain systems are currently unavailable, which may affect some appointments and services. Our teams are working urgently to restore affected systems as quickly and safely as possible,” the Luminis notice says.

“Our top priority remains providing safe, high-quality care to our patients while responding to this incident,” it said. “We understand the concern and inconvenience this disruption may cause, and we sincerely appreciate your understanding and patience with our teams.”

Luminis did not immediately respond to request for an update on the on the incident or the ongoing investigation. As of Tuesday, the health system’s website still warns that patients may be facing disruptions in services due to the incident.

But Luminis is just the latest example in what seems to be a rise in cybersecurity threats facing the healthcare industry. FBI data on reported ransomware attacks on “critical infrastructure” in 2025 shows that the healthcare industry was the largest target for ransomware that year, with 460 of 2,118 reported ransomware attacks targeting the the healthcare and public health sphere.

“It’s a threat that we have to take very seriously,” Yelin said. “It’s [the Luminis attack] adding to a series of disturbing incidents going back 10 years to the MedStar cyber incident.”

He’s referring to a large ransomware attack in 2016 which included MedStar Health along with municipalities and public institutions across the United States.

Attacks on the healthcare sphere have continued since. In 2021, the Maryland Department of Health and local departments faced a ransomware attack that disrupted operations for weeks. And in 2024, a ransomware attack on Ascension hospitals affected facilities in Baltimore.

Hospitals and related entities like insurance companies are a favorite target among cybercriminals who find the sensitive and personal health information sheltered in those institutions and hold it for ransom, locking those types of healthcare institutions out of their own systems with a demand for payment.

“Hospitals have this enhanced risk. Not only are they interconnected, but just the quality of the data they have makes them more attractive to cyber criminals,” Yelin said.

Meanwhile, direct interference in the technical infrastructure at hospitals, such as through a denial-of-service attack, can disrupt the medical care at hospitals, and can have ripple effects on other spokes of the healthcare industry.

“Any downtime is potentially risking lives. Cybercriminals know that. They know the level of desperation that’s so unique to these hospitals,” Yelin said. “If there’s any kind of delayed treatment, or if you’re forcing medical staff to lose access to electronic health records … if there are are delays in lab results, if you can’t see the interactions between drug medications, you’re going to feel the impacts.

“You can understand why this sector is so popular for cybercriminals,” he said.

]]>

The largest US school districts restrict student AI use

Robbie Sequeira, Stateline — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by Stateline.

The country’s two largest school districts — New York City and Los Angeles — banned most student use of artificial intelligence in classrooms for this school year as anxiety over AI’s effect on learning intensifies.

The Los Angeles Unified School District announced last week that it is barring student use of generative AI on school-issued devices for the current school year. Generative AI creates new text, images or other content following a user’s instructions. During the school year, a committee will produce recommendations for use of the technology in future years.

New York City Public Schools last week announced a similar but less broad approach. The district put in place a one-year moratorium on generative AI for children from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.

High school students will have to complete 45-minute AI literacy modules twice a year. Some career-focused AI use will be allowed and some high schools will be permitted to test AI pilot programs.

The restrictions, which New York officials said will affect 600,000 students, will allow time to study the technology’s impacts.

“The tech industry wants us to believe that A.I.-powered early education is not only inevitable, but necessary,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a news release. “We do not see it that way.”

Chicago officials may follow suit. About half the candidates running for the Chicago Board of Education this November have signed a pledge calling for a three-year moratorium on generative AI use in the public school classrooms.

Smaller school districts around the country have taken similar steps. Districts in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Texas and Washington have blocked or limited tools such as ChatGPT, while some allow approved platforms under teacher supervision.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

]]>

New state cloud rules are rewriting who can sell to government

Colton Overcash — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0400

For technology vendors, the most important date in North Carolina’s new cloud-security policy may not be April 1, 2027. It may be the date of their next solicitation or renewal.

Since April 1, 2026, new North Carolina executive-branch contracts containing a cloud component have included risk-assessment requirements aligned with the Government Risk and Authorization Management Program, known as GovRAMP.

Vendors currently may receive an on-ramp period to reach the required status. Beginning April 1, 2027, full compliance will be required without that transition, while existing contracts must align when they are renewed or put out for a new solicitation.

North Carolina is part of a broader shift. Texas prohibits covered state entities and public higher education institutions from entering or renewing cloud contracts unless the service holds the appropriate certification under the Texas Risk and Authorization Management Program, or TX-RAMP. Vendors relying on FedRAMP or GovRAMP must request reciprocity rather than receive it automatically.

Indiana’s policy reaches cloud contracts executed, amended or renewed after Oct. 14, 2025. Nevada began adding GovRAMP requirements to new executive-branch cloud contracts on July 1, 2026, with Core as the minimum for many products and higher verification possible based on the data involved.

These programs are not interchangeable. Their scope, thresholds and reciprocity rules differ. But they are sending the same market signal: independently verified security is moving from a review conducted near the end of procurement to a requirement that can determine who competes and on what timetable.

That shift can help government. State technology leaders face more third-party products than their security teams can evaluate repeatedly. A reusable assessment can reduce duplicative questionnaires, give agencies a common body of evidence and provide continuing visibility through monitoring.

For vendors, however, it changes the sales cycle.

North Carolina uses a high-water-mark approach in which the most sensitive information entering a cloud service determines the required status. Public data requires validation of a security snapshot score. Internal data generally maps to GovRAMP Core, while Confidential and Restricted data map to Ready and Authorized. A product built for a routine use case can therefore face a much higher bar when one integration touches personnel records, health information or criminal-justice data.

This makes data mapping a business-development issue, not merely a technical exercise. Vendors need to understand what enters their product, where it moves and whether a new use could raise its classification after award. North Carolina requires agencies to confirm that a provider can satisfy the higher standard, including through a contract modification, before more sensitive information is transferred or processed.

Product architecture matters as well. A software application does not become GovRAMP compliant simply because it runs on authorized infrastructure. Each cloud layer must be evaluated within its own security boundary, although some controls may be inherited from the underlying platform.

Product development can also create new compliance obligations after the initial assessment. GovRAMP’s 2026 modernization identifies the addition of generative AI to cloud products as a significant-change issue involving provider notification and a self-reporting addendum. Features once treated mainly as product-road-map decisions can now carry authorization and procurement consequences.

Channel partners do not remove the problem. North Carolina’s policy expressly reaches professional-services vendors that use cloud services to process, transmit or store state data while performing their work. Resellers and integrators therefore need to know whether the underlying product and the environment used to deliver it can meet the customer’s requirements.

Incumbents face a quieter risk. Past performance does not waive a new security standard when a contract reaches renewal. Providers should review their public-sector contract calendars now and work backward from upcoming renewals, amendments and solicitations.

Compliance also carries real costs. GovRAMP’s published annual dues and PMO fees for Core begin at $10,500 for providers with less than $1 million in revenue. Ready and Authorized require an independent third-party assessment whose cost is not included in that figure.

Governments should keep requirements proportional to the data involved, recognize credible reciprocity and preserve workable on-ramps. Otherwise, a policy intended to reduce cyber risk could also reduce competition and favor vendors best able to absorb the expense.

The implications are not confined to state government. GovRAMP is designed for state and local government buyers, including education systems, and allows verified evidence to be reused across participating jurisdictions. That does not mean every city or county faces the same mandate, but vendors should not assume these expectations will remain contained within state executive agencies.

Cybersecurity readiness now belongs in product planning, pricing and capture strategy. April 2027 is North Carolina’s formal deadline. For companies seeking state and local business, the next solicitation or renewal may be the one that matters more.

Colton Overcash is the founder of Vertex Strategies and is a former presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He previously led a multistate government affairs program for a Fortune 500 technology company and advises businesses on government strategy, critical infrastructure, technology and public-sector markets.

]]>

Mobile IDs are an ‘easy sell,’ but state leaders urge more education

Chris Teale — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 13:00:00 -0400

The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles announced late last month that its mobile driver’s license or state identity card can now be accessed in Apple Wallet and used at select organizations.

It represents another major step forward for the nascent mobile driver’s license technology, known as mDLs, which are now accepted in 21 states and Puerto Rico for things like security checks with the Transportation Security Administration. Indiana is also now debating its own mDL effort.

But in states where mDLs are in use, adoption among residents remains low. Angelique McClendon, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Driver Services, said just 800,000 people in the state use the technology, which represents about 8% of its population. Using it is an “easy sell” for many people, she said, but there needs to be more use cases and more education and outreach about how useful mDLs can be.

“When people hear that this is available on your phone, they hear convenience,” McClendon said during a panel discussion at the Identity Week conference in Washington, D.C. last week. “When they hear about the structure, the infrastructure there, and identity verification, it's not hard to sell the benefits for efficiency, convenience, fraud mitigation. It's an easy sell. The next step is, well, how do we do that?”

One crucial avenue for encouraging more use of mDLs is having them be accepted by law enforcement, McClendon said, meaning people no longer have to have their physical driver’s license with them and present it during a traffic stop. A new Georgia law will require its agencies to accept mDLs starting July 1, 2027, and acquire the verification technology to help them do so.

“Once law enforcement has the ability to accept it at scale, that means everybody can leave their wallet at home and they don't have to carry their physical card,” said Tim Roufa, portfolio director for identity credentialing at the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. “When that becomes an option for people, I think you'll see a lot of people start demanding and accepting that they're able to use that credential in other venues.”

Making other use cases available will also be critical, said Christine Nizer, administrator of the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. Currently, mDLs can be useful for online identity verification, as well as address changes, password reset and account creation. But having them usable in physical locations helps raise awareness too.

Nizer noted that the Baltimore Orioles accept mDLs at some self-service kiosks at their Camden Yards ballpark when fans want to buy alcohol, an effort that she said has driven more sales as throughput is faster at those kiosks. That then also makes more people aware that they can use an mDL in everyday situations, she said.

“Online presentation is easier because you don't have the hardware to navigate and figure out [point of sale] integration and all those things,” Nizer said. “I do think as we talk about democratizing it and having opportunities that resonate with people, we've got to figure out the physical space, because that's what I hear customers talk about more than anything.”

Another challenge is ensuring that the tech companies who offer mobile wallets — Apple, Google and Samsung, among others — allow mDLs to be stored and accessible for verification. Will Wilkinson, director of government affairs at identity verification company Persona, said during the panel discussion that it can be a “bureaucratic process” to get permission from those tech giants.

But Wilkinson, who argued in a recent opinion piece for Route Fifty that mDLs are hitting their “tipping point,” said the convenience factor will be huge.

“When people see that, ‘Oh, I no longer have to take a picture of my driver's license,’ or, ‘I can onboard onto a new app or do my workforce verification at my new job just by sharing my mDL out of my phone,’ that convenience is going to, I think, drive adoption,” he said.

Public interest is growing in mDLs, based on recent research. In a survey published last year, cybersecurity, digital identity and aerospace company Thales found that 65% of those surveyed in the U.S. and Canada were interested in obtaining an mDL and digital ID, while nearly 70% said they would prefer to do so via an official government wallet.

The survey also found that, of those who have used an mDL, the vast majority had a satisfactory or better experience. Spencer Moore, Thales’ vice president of civil identity, said having verification technology more widely available will drive further adoption.

“What we know is when we go to TSA, they have the ability to check that digital credential because they have the equipment to do so,” Moore said in an interview at Identity Week. “Once we're able to get to a scenario where it's available to the public, it's fairly easily used, then we will see greater adoption. In my view, that's going to be pharmacies, grocery stores, banks. Places where we normally frequent, in which we have to show our credentials. When they have the verifier equipment, that's when adoption will ramp up.”

]]>

Big Tech wants to build a data center in your city. Is it worth it?

Brian Martucci, Minnesota Reformer — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by the Minnesota Reformer.

Community opposition to data centers is rising fast, but big computing facilities still have at least one influential fan.

“If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state and I had a chance to get a big … AI plant or data center, I would absolutely want it because the jobs are enormous and the money paid, the taxes paid, are just enormous,” President Donald Trump told reporters last month.

He returned to the subject recently, in harsher form.

“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump said in a lengthy Truth Social post. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.”

Recent public polling shows Trump’s stance on data centers is unpopular, even within his own party. A recent Economist/YouGov poll finds the general concept of data center construction underwater by more than 30 percentage points, and Americans opposed to data centers in their communities by a margin of more than 3 to 1.

Fifty-two percent of Republicans would say no to a new data center nearby, while just 28% would support one, the poll found. Respondents expressed particular concern about data centers’ impacts on electric bills and home values.

Those worries and others — about excessive water usage, air and noise pollution, strain on the power grid and secret deals between developers and local officials — are bubbling up across Minnesota as Meta brings the state’s first hyperscale data center online in Rosemount, and Google seeks permission to build two more near Rochester and Duluth. There’s unease about what happens inside these facilities, too.

“There is very real, increasing opposition to AI and the way it is being forcefully integrated into our lives against our will. People rightfully understand data centers to be inextricably linked to the spread of this unpopular technology,” said DFL state Sen. Erin Maye Quade, who represents parts of Rosemount.

Benefits can be significant

Evidence from data center host communities suggests the economic benefits are real. Property taxes paid by about 30 data centers in Quincy, Washington, underwrite an ongoing public building spree in a once-poor agricultural town. Loudoun County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C., has reduced residential property taxes every year of the past decade thanks to hundreds of millions in annual revenue from more than 70 data centers.

“You can … accommodate some of those needs, and not burden the average taxpayer with bills they cannot afford, by growing the property tax base,” Pete Sepp, president of the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union, said in a May webinar extolling the local benefits of data centers.

Across the Potomac River from Loudoun in Sepp’s home base of Montgomery County, Maryland, “there is an outright hostility in the regulatory and tax climate … not coincidentally, well, my universal homeowners property tax credit of almost $700 is going away (and) the local income tax rate (is) going up,” he added.

Downtown Minneapolis has several smallish data centers in operation and at least one more under construction. A few dozen more dot the Twin Cities’ suburbs. Some of these have operated uneventfully for decades. But Minnesota does not yet have any computing clusters to rival Quincy’s or Loudoun County’s.

Meta’s Rosemount facility will be the state’s first experience with the newer generation of industrial-scale facilities that has soured public opinion on data centers generally. Rosemount says Meta could pay the city up to $20 million in property taxes over 20 years and support 148 permanent jobs once operational, likely later this year or in early 2027. The city reported total revenues of $68.8 million in 2024.

The Dakota County assessor expects the project to have a total tax bill of $2.6 million in 2028, Rosemount community development director Adam Kienberger told the Reformer.

The companies behind more than a dozen other proposed data centers around Minnesota — some bigger than Meta’s — tout similar economic benefits.

The bigger the data center, the bigger the promise. Meta says it will spend more than $300 million on local infrastructure improvements to support the $50 billion campus it’s building in northeastern Louisiana, while giving every teacher in the area a bonus of up to $50,000 this year and delivering $2.65 billion in bill savings over 20 years through its partnership with Entergy, Louisiana’s main electric utility.

Maye Quade is among a growing group of state and local officials who say tech companies’ apparent generosity amounts to an admission that large-scale data centers are burdensome.

“These tech billionaires could just pay the taxes they spend billions of dollars getting politicians to eliminate instead of bribing individual communities to try and blunt opposition,” she told the Reformer in an email.

“The use of ‘host community’ is so interesting here, as it evokes a host-parasite relationship, which I think is apt,” she added.

Backroom negotiations between Meta, utility executives and state officials in 2024 netted the tech giant up to $10 billion in tax breaks and a host of other benefits for its Louisiana campus, the New York Times reported in July.

Meta shrouded its Rosemount project in secrecy, too, using a codename (“Project Bigfoot”) and shell company (“Jimnist, LLC”) to conceal its identity early in the development process. Rosemount and two of its neighbors, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights, have since passed temporary moratoriums on data center development.

Reality check: water usage

Minneapolis also temporarily halted approvals in most of the city earlier this year as it updates its zoning rules for data centers. Planning staff say that while land constraints make Minneapolis a poor host for hyperscale facilities, the city has plenty of existing buildings that could be retrofitted for high-powered server rooms.

Several such projects are operating, under construction or proposed downtown: at the Sleep Number building, a former Wells Fargo operations center and, most recently, the Minnesota Star Tribune’s shuttered printing plant. All would occupy less real estate and draw significantly less power than Meta’s Rosemount campus.

Experts say these comparatively small urban facilities are less impactful than hyperscale campuses when housed in existing commercial buildings with nearby power, water and fiber lines. Hyperscale data centers typically rise on agricultural land and require substantial infrastructure upgrades before they can come online.

Urban data centers can in some cases be a net benefit for utility systems with spare capacity, said Meg McMahan, Minneapolis’ city planning director.

The Minneapolis water utility was built to treat 110 million gallons of water per day, at least 20 million gallons more than current peak daily demand, McMahan’s staff said in a presentation to the city council last month. The presentation said the Sleep Number data center uses about 100,000 gallons of water per day, or 0.5% of the excess daily capacity.

That is a lot of water, but it pales in comparison to the amount consumed for, say, summertime landscape irrigation. The suburbs of Golden Valley, Crystal and New Hope, all of which tap the Minneapolis water system, can see daily demand jump 10 million gallons or more in summer — more than double levels seen in the cooler months.

Data centers with closed-loop cooling systems, which are fast becoming the industry norm, consume even less water once the systems are charged. The developer of the proposed Star Tribune printing plant facility, for instance, has said it will consume “two to four residential homes’” worth of water each day. (These figures don’t account for the water consumed by the gas, coal and nuclear power plants that generate about two-thirds of Minnesota’s electricity and dwarf other sources of water demand, however.)

Likewise, every Xcel Energy customer in Minneapolis pays a percentage-based franchise fee on their monthly electric bill. That fee passes through to the city, which uses a portion of it to fund climate and energy efficiency initiatives. Because even small data centers consume more electricity per square foot than offices or homes, they pay proportionally more toward these initiatives, McMahan told the Reformer in an interview.

“That is a direct financial contribution,” she said.

Minnesota also requires data centers to pay the full cost of electrical service, including any new power plants or lines. Google has said it will pay to bring more than two large nuclear reactors’ worth of emissions-free energy resources online to support its two proposed data centers in Minnesota. By contrast, all Xcel ratepayers typically cover its costs to build new infrastructure, plus a profit margin approved by Minnesota utility regulators.

City analyst: Data center retrofits offer lower benefit, but still worthwhile

On the other hand, a data center added to an existing downtown building has a smaller net benefit for public budgets in Minneapolis and Hennepin County than a fresh hyperscale campus does in places like Rosemount and Dakota County.

The data center is likely to boost the building’s value, as the Sleep Number project did, but from a much higher base — and thus less in percentage terms — than hundreds of thousands of square feet of state-of-the-art industrial space on former cornfields.

The takeaway from a staff report shared with the Minneapolis City Council last month was that while data center retrofits could shift property tax burdens away Minneapolis residents who’ve seen steep tax increases of late, the net benefit for the city’s finances is more difficult to determine and likely to vary by project.

“We’re talking about really different contextual situations when you’re talking about Rosemount versus downtown Minneapolis,” McMahan said.

Minneapolis has roughly 8 million square feet of vacant commercial space and would like to convert as much as possible into housing, but with many buildings unsuitable for residential use, “Data centers are another tool in the toolbox,” she added.

It’s a reasonable position in a place where data centers already nudge up against shops, restaurants and offices. Representatives from the Virginia-based company behind the Sleep Number and Star Tribune projects made the connection explicit at a neighborhood meeting last month, saying a lucrative data center in the former printing plant — which itself is likely unsuitable for residential conversion — would subsidize new housing elsewhere on the 13-acre site.

If attendees’ hostile reaction to the pitch was any indication of local sentiment, they have a lot more convincing to do.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

]]>

Flock cameras divide Tennessee governments, residents over privacy as some end their contracts

Larry Griffin, Tennessee Lookout — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Tennessee Lookout.

Sullivan County, Tennessee Commissioner Joe Carr made headlines in August when he proclaimed at a public meeting that the CEO of security company Flock Safety “should be hanged” for treason, calling the company “one of the most hated” in America.

His comments, though incendiary, come amid a reckoning over the security cameras monitoring traffic in many American communities over the past few years. The issue has sparked debate over the conflicting values of privacy and community safety.

With some communities sticking by Flock and others ending their contracts, there’s no clear consensus that has emerged on where communities will go from here.

Days after Carr’s comments, the Sullivan County Commission voted not to renew its Flock contract, which expires in January.

Flock, a surveillance hardware manufacturer, is known for its automated license plate reader, ALPR, cameras, which have become controversial as local governments and law enforcement use them to help solve crimes. The cameras pick up images of vehicles and license plates on the road and feed into a nationwide network, allowing law enforcement to access cameras from anywhere in the country.

This has become contentious among the public, members of whom raise alarm over mass surveillance and privacy erosion concerns.

The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, has catalogued more than 100 instances of law enforcement officers using the technology for non-law enforcement uses and stalking, including two in Tennessee. Some governments are rethinking using them, including in Knoxville, while Nashville has stalled implementation of the systems.

“The American people deserve better than to be used as a beta test for unproven technology that is turning local police departments into mini-CIAs,” said Carr in an email statement.

Anderson County officials also have doubts: the county will hold a town hall in September about its use of the cameras, and Anderson County Commissioner Chad McNabb said “around 75%” of residents had serious concerns about privacy relating to them.

Still on Board

Yet many east Tennessee municipalities swear by the utility of the cameras. Blount and Carter counties still partner with Flock.

In a letter to the Blount County Commissioners, Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Jeff French wrote that the department doesn’t track people using the cameras and doesn’t deploy AI tools to analyze the public. French writes that the department uses the cameras “as an investigative tool,” using it to find leads on crimes and look for vehicles already flagged as stolen or on national databases like missing persons.

Calling the benefits of the technology “real and significant,” French wrote that the cameras have “helped us locate missing and endangered persons, recover citizens’ stolen vehicles and property, monitor sex offenders near our schools, disrupt drug trafficking and apprehend violent offenders with arrest warrants.”

Much Ado About Cameras in Johnson City

Johnson City, which partnered with Flock for a 10-year contract in 2025, has 145 license plate readers and 145 pan/tilt/zoom cameras. The city also has gunshot detectors and two mobile security trailers.

At a city commission work session on Aug. 20, Johnson City Police Deputy Chief Mike Adams said the cameras were only used to take photos of cars and license plates — he said they do not track peoples’ movements and can’t take video. He added that the gunshot detectors can’t pick up human conversation.

He said the pan/tilt/zoom cameras were placed in public areas like parks or schools, and were used to monitor for crimes or suspicious individuals, including sex offenders.

Those who violate the use of the cameras would be fired, according to Adams, which he said happened in previous cases across the country. Adams said those firings proved the “system was working.”

“You’re not going to find someone who’d like to see [a bad cop] lose their job more than the cop trying to do the right thing,” he said.

To Adams’ knowledge, no one in the Johnson City Police Department had misused the cameras yet, he told Tennessee Lookout.

Addressing privacy concerns, Adams said it was a “reasonable expectation” that people in public would be caught on some kind of camera somewhere.

He said Johnson City Police have been able to communicate easier with law enforcement in neighboring states to find people via license plates.

“Before [the cameras], all you were doing was a report for the victim,” he said. “The suspect was out of Johnson City. We’d never see that stuff again.”

In one case, Adams said police were able to locate a child who had gone missing from a McDonalds. It turned out the boy had wandered off on his own with a friend, and was not in danger, but Adams said Flock had saved them a lot of time and helped ease the family’s worry.

“That wouldn’t have happened two years ago,” Adams said. “We wouldn’t have known where they were. We would’ve had to rely on Amber Alerts and community members to find them.”

Johnson City Commissioner Joe Wise told the Lookout they have to “separate the technology from the misuse of technology.”

“The truth is, there are civil liberties set up around cameras and surveillance, to catch abuses of those systems,” he said. “The same arguments could be made about handcuffs, or interrogations – everything the police do has a civil liberty attached to it.”

“So the question is, really, are we going to use the tools responsibly, or are we going to turn our back on it, and leave our community less-adequately served on the public safety side?” he said.

Wise and Johnson City Mayor Greg Cox believe the public ultimately will appreciate the greater safety coming from the cameras.

“Most of the arguments out there are political arguments, and they have nothing to do with anything but creating a bunch of noise,” Cox said. “People are thankful there’s these tools out there for the police. Overwhelmingly, to me, there’s a positive conversation about it. We hear a lot more conversation than the things that get shared [online].”

Fired Up

Despite government confidence, plenty of people are fired up and angry about the cameras. Some of them are angry enough to physically destroy them, including Adam Heimerman, an independent candidate for the 2nd Congressional District, who was arrested on four counts of vandalism after reportedly shooting four Flock cameras in his area.

People have been arrested for vandalizing Flock cameras across the country. In Florida, police plant decoy Flock cameras to catch vandals.

After Flock CEO Garrett Langley told Fox News that focusing on privacy “prioritizes the wrong things,” the Flock critics leaked what they purported was his home address.

Flock officials didn’t respond to a request for comment by Tennessee Lookout.

The DeFlock Movement

DeFlock.org has a map of where Flock cameras have been found across the country. The group’s goal is to “raise awareness about the threats [Flock] poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action.”

Local offshoot groups have sprung up. The man who runs the “DeFlock Johnson City, Tennessee” Facebook page is Johnson City resident Connor Beske.

He said he doesn’t have any particular qualifications except passion.

“I’m dumb and stubborn,” he said. “I’ll stick with something as long as I need to.”

In the three months since he started the page, he’s gotten more attention than he knows what to do with.

“A lot of candidates” at the local and state level want to get involved, he said.

“There’s some lobbyists I’ve talked to working on this,” he said. “They’re like, can you drive to Knoxville and hang out with this and this lawmaker? I’m like, well I can’t because I have a job, and this is insane.”

Beske thinks the Flock cameras, and others like them, are a more serious problem than other privacy concerns such as Google tracking your phone or modern vehicles with smart features.

“If you don’t want them tracking you, removing a computer module from your truck isn’t a small feat, but you’re allowed to,” he said. “But if you drive that truck on the public road in a town with hundreds of cameras, you’re getting tracked anyway. You took all those steps, still the government circumvented all of it, and they still know where you’re going.”

]]>

AI and the new rules of digital trust: Watermarks

Alan R. Shark — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0400

For centuries, watermarks had a quiet, almost passive purpose. A faint emblem in fine paper identified a manufacturer. A portrait embedded in currency helped expose counterfeits.

A translucent logo across a photograph discouraged unauthorized reuse. In each case, the watermark said something about origin, ownership, or authenticity — but only if someone stopped to look.

Today, the watermark is being assigned a far more ambitious job: helping society distinguish human expression from artificial intelligence-generated content on an enormous scale.

That change moved from policy debate to legal requirement in Europe on Aug. 2, 2026, when important transparency provisions of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act became applicable. Among them is a requirement that providers of systems generating synthetic text, images, audio, or video make their output detectable as artificially generated or manipulated, where technically feasible.

While this may appear to be a European regulation, it has enormous implications for the US too. Both OpenAI and Anthropic are planning to implement it worldwide. No doubt other AI companies will do the same.

The basic goal is easy to understand: people should have a better chance of knowing when what they see, hear, or read was created by AI.

What Europe is Trying to Protect

The rule is aimed less at punishing ordinary AI use than at combating deception and manipulation. The concerns include deepfakes, impersonation, fraud, fabricated evidence, misleading political material, and the growing difficulty of separating an authentic recording or document from something created artificially.

The regulation does not require a large warning label on every AI-assisted sentence. Nor does it treat every use of AI equally.

An important distinction exists between asking AI to correct punctuation or improve a sentence and asking it to write an entire essay, create a photograph of an event that never happened, or produce a convincing video of a public official saying something that was never said.

That distinction will matter more as AI becomes part of everyday work.

What Exactly is a Digital Watermark?

The word “watermark” can be misleading because the mark may not actually be visible.

Think of it instead as a digital clue placed in or attached to AI-generated material. Special software may be able to examine a photograph, audio recording, video, document, or other content and determine that an AI system played a role in creating it.

Text presents a greater challenge because words can easily be copied, rewritten, shortened, translated, or rearranged. The more something is modified, the harder it may become to identify its AI origins.

That leads to an important limitation.

A watermark does not necessarily prove that something is false. And the absence of a watermark does not prove that something is genuine.

At best, it provides another piece of evidence about where digital material came from and how it may have been created.

What About Copyright?

Watermarking and copyright are related, but not the same. A watermark does not automatically establish ownership. Nor does identifying something as AI-generated automatically mean copyright protection is impossible.

In the United States, copyright protection still depends heavily on human authorship and creative contribution. Someone who simply asks an AI system to generate an article, illustration, or other work may have a weaker claim than someone who substantially edits, restructures, combines, and adds original creative material.

This creates a fascinating new question: At what point does AI-generated material become human-created work?

Consider an author who asks AI for an initial draft but then rewrites large portions, adds original examples, verifies the facts, changes the argument, and shapes the final product according to his or her own judgment. AI clearly participated, but so did the human author.

Watermarks may someday help document that process. They are unlikely, however, to settle the question of authorship by themselves.

The Academic Implications

Education may be one of the areas most affected by this development.

Universities have spent considerable effort trying to determine whether students are submitting AI-generated assignments. Watermarking might seem like a simple solution: check the document and see whether AI created it.

Unfortunately, it will not be that easy.

A student might legitimately use AI for brainstorming, grammar assistance, translation, research organization, or developing an outline. Another student might have AI write an entire paper and then rewrite enough of it to make detection difficult.

That means a watermark should never automatically become proof of academic misconduct.

The more important change may be moving education away from trying to “catch AI” and toward requiring students to demonstrate learning. Faculty can establish clear rules about acceptable AI assistance, require disclosure when appropriate, examine drafts and notes, and occasionally ask students to explain their reasoning or defend their work.

The real question should not simply be, “Did AI touch this assignment?” It should be, “What intellectual work did the student actually perform?”

Implications for Government

For federal, state, and local governments, AI watermarking will become much more than a technology issue.

Imagine a convincing video appearing online in which a governor announces an evacuation, a mayor claims that drinking water is unsafe, or a police chief supposedly announces that a dangerous suspect has been captured.

How would citizens know whether it was real?

Digital markings could eventually help governments authenticate official communications and identify fraudulent ones. Government agencies may also need policies governing when AI-generated public information should be disclosed, how digital identification information should be preserved as part of public records, and what requirements should be placed on AI vendors.

The implications also extend to courts, law enforcement, public meetings, elections, emergency management, and records management.

But government must be careful not to place too much faith in the technology. A watermark should be treated as a signal — not a verdict. Human verification, due process, judgment and accountability remain essential.

A Signal, Not a Solution

The European approach represents an important attempt to address one of the defining problems of the AI age: we can no longer assume that seeing is believing.

But watermarks will face the same challenge confronting almost every technological safeguard. As soon as methods emerge to identify AI-generated content, others will try to remove, defeat, or manipulate them. Some companies already market tools that claim to detect hidden AI signals, while others promise to make AI-generated material harder to detect.

It could become another technological arms race. That does not make watermarking useless. It means we should understand what it can and cannot accomplish.

The central question is no longer simply, “Is this real?”

Increasingly, we must also ask:

“Where did this come from?”

“What role did AI play?”

And perhaps most importantly:

“Who takes responsibility for it?”

Digital watermarks may help answer the first two questions. But as with so many attempts to regulate rapidly changing technology, they cannot answer the third. That still remains a human responsibility.

Alan R. Shark, a senior fellow at the Public Technology Institute (PTI), is an associate professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, where he also serves as a faculty member in the Center for Human AI Innovation in Society. He is also a senior fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and founder and co-chair of its Standing Panel on Technology Leadership. He hosts the podcast series Sharkbytes.net.

]]>

How tech can help localities solve weather gaps

Chris Teale — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 13:00:00 -0400

When a tornado touched down in Lee County, Florida several years ago and moved through a populated area, local officials thought the National Weather Service would have warned them beforehand.

But neither the assigned NWS forecast office in Tampa Bay nor the other closest in Miami issued a tornado warning to Lee County. Ben Abes, the county’s director of public safety, explained that, upon contacting the NWS, officials there said they had not seen the tornado approaching on their radar.

When it hit around 6:30 a.m., the county received multiple 911 calls and had first responders in the middle of a shift change, but formal warnings needed to come from weather forecasters, so Lee County was caught flat-footed in its response.

“There was this really significant disconnect that unfortunately we understood in great detail,” Abes said. “Thankfully, no fatalities, but we had some injuries and we had a tremendous amount of damage we had to clean up from.”

The incident stemmed from a phenomenon known as radar gaps, where weather or other climate activity is too low to be seen by the radars controlled by the NWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather stations, but it still has real-world impacts. Partly, that is due to aging technology that lawmakers have sought to upgrade and replace, and it is estimated to impact millions of people and leave them vulnerable to tornadoes, floods and more.

Job cuts and other turmoil at NOAA and NWS wrought by the Department of Government Efficiency have worsened the predicament, and led many state and local governments to turn to technology to try and stay ahead of the problem themselves and supplement federal forecasting tools.

Lee County, for example, has been hit by Hurricanes Irma and Ian in recent years, and since then has invested in its own tools to provide localized weather forecasting and data. Abes said that has included tidal gauges from Hohonu and the weather intelligence platform Weatherstem, as a lack of localized data before had left the county “fairly blind,” he said.

The county also just installed an enhanced radar system from Climavision, which not only tracks major weather events like thunderstorms and hurricanes, but also air quality and other metrics. Having a localized radar can pick up on events that NWS may miss, and it can then be used to supplement their existing infrastructure and radars to build a fuller picture of what is happening.

“There's a lot of things that happen at the lower levels of the atmosphere that are not visible, and so they don't get a special weather statement, they don't get a severe thunderstorm warning because, from their vantage point, they don't have the same visibility as they would storms that are directly adjacent to the Tampa Bay region,” Abes said. “We're a solid hour-and-a-half drive from the Weather Service office. If you're 15 or 30 minutes away from the Weather Service office, they could tell you the moment it starts raining, but they can't necessarily see that until some of the storms really explode here in Southwest Florida.”

Cities, counties and state governments are on the forefront of dealing with more extreme weather, especially as the nation and the world reckon with the effects of climate change and a rapidly warming planet creating more instability in the atmosphere. And perhaps the biggest issue for governments at all levels is finding the money to make themselves more resilient and better prepared for extreme weather.

“There will never be enough public dollars,” Melissa Hoffer, Massachusetts’ climate chief, said during a webinar last month hosted by Clark University. “What we had previously in the [Inflation Reduction Act] was a good accelerator, which we don't have anymore. But now without that, we have to figure it out. People at the local government level are the ones that are dealing with this issue, no matter if the federal government is there or not.”

The constraints on public dollars have led to greater calls for public-private partnerships, like the kind underway in Lee County, where private industry helps governments better track local weather using high-end tools. Providers, then, need to show that they are not trying to privatize weather but are supplementing what already exists and doing so to help the public good.

“The technology that we bring to the table is not here to replace the National Weather Service,” said Tara Goode, Climavision’s vice president of strategic partnerships and radar operations. “The number one thing we need to do is prove that we work with the National Weather Service, which is an easy thing to do. Our data is operationalized in their environment. That provides a lot of confidence and credibility. Any technological provider or potential P3 partner needs to ensure they are being respectful and responsible when they enter that conversation, because it's a non-starter if you try to replace the really great work that's already being done at the federal level.”

For local leaders, such partnerships need a “great deal of scrutiny” to ensure they’re a good fit, Abes said. Lee County has engaged with P3s since 2013, he said, and given how the relationship with NWS has evolved, governments can try something new.

“These are complex problems, and sometimes we get stuck in this rut of trying to solve them the same way,” Abes said. “We’ve tried to take down every possible barrier and find ways to fix those gaps.”

]]>

NYC’s new school AI ban explained: What’s changing? What’s still murky?

Alex Zimmerman and Michael Elsen-Rooney, Chalkbeat — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Chalkbeat.

After months of waiting, Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday released the outlines of New York City’s approach to dealing with artificial intelligence and screen time in schools next year.

But just eight days before the start of the school year, there are still many details to be worked out.

The city will ban student-facing generative AI tools, like chatbots and tutors that respond to prompts, in preschool- through eighth-grade classrooms, while allowing limited AI use in high school. It will also limit screen time for younger kids.

Officials said they’re “disabling” AI features on 38 software programs already in use in city schools, but haven’t shared what those products are. Officials posted the written guidance online Wednesday evening.

The policy opens up a host of thorny new questions, including how the city will determine what level of AI is acceptable in tech products, what happens to existing programs that violate the policy, and how the guidelines will be enforced.

And city officials have admitted they have little hard data on how much AI is currently in use across the 1,600 schools. They declined to release the results of a survey asking schools about AI use, despite repeated requests.

The new policy, which Mamdani described as the “broadest generative AI moratorium in the nation,” has already drawn a mix of reactions.

A coalition of advocates pushing for a two-year moratorium on AI use said the new policy is a “step in the right direction,” but raised concerns about pilot programs that will allow tens of thousands of high school students to use tools involving generative AI.

Others said the new policy will be disruptive for schools. Richard Buery, a former deputy mayor and CEO of the Robin Hood Foundation, said educators are already using tech tools to quickly generate lessons that parents can use for their children at home or get faster feedback on their students’ classroom assignments.

“While well-intentioned, a blanket one-year AI ban, without exceptions, on all uses through middle school is not the right call,” he said in a statement.

Here’s what we know so far, and what we’re still waiting to learn.

How Long Will the AI Moratorium Last?

The prohibition on student-facing AI tools from preschool through eighth grade will run for at least this coming school year. City officials vowed to convene a coalition of educators, students, parents, union officials, and experts to help assess the policy and whether to change it in the future.

Which Specific Products are Being Banned, and Who Decides?

New York City principals can buy education technology in two basic ways: For smaller purchases, they can contract directly with a vendor. For larger ones, they generally have to use a vendor that already has a citywide contract with the Education Department.

Mamdani said Wednesday that the Education Department is “disabling” AI features in 38 existing citywide ed tech contracts. Officials haven’t provided a list of those companies. But Mamdani’s education adviser Ailish Brady said that the widely used digital tutor Amira and the digital version of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt reading curriculum — the most popular of the three mandated NYC Reads literacy programs — will both “turn off” their AI components.

A spokesperson for HMH said “there is no student-facing AI in Into Reading,” the company’s elementary school reading curriculum.

An Amira spokesperson said the product is currently used in 222 schools, and that the company has reached out to the Education Department for clarity on what the new AI policy will mean for the product.

Brady didn’t directly respond to a question about whether Google’s AI chatbot Gemini, which comes pre-loaded on many students’ Chromebook laptops, would be disabled. But advocates who met with city officials said they were told that Gemini would be shut off.

In cases where a company can’t simply turn off the AI features of a product, the city will no longer use that product, Brady added.

How city officials will determine whether AI has been sufficiently scrubbed from a product isn’t clear.

After freezing all new education purchases for nearly two months, officials gave principals the green light Wednesday to resume buying software, with a big caveat. Any new request for ed tech under $25,000 will now undergo an extra layer of review from the Education Department’s IT, legal, and contracts teams, Deputy Chancellor Lindsey Oates told principals in a Monday webinar. Oates warned the reviews will “take some time,” potentially creating an additional bottleneck in a contracting process that can already be slow.

Who Will be Exempt From the Ban?

Technology that supports students with disabilities and English language learners with specific educational needs will be exempt, officials said. Brady offered examples: an eye-tracking technology that helps students with cerebral palsy type and an Education Department-created program called Hello App that helps students learning English communicate with teachers.

There will also be exceptions for required reading and math assessments that students take on computers to track their progress throughout the year.

How is AI Being Used in High Schools?

High schools have the most leeway with AI tools and are allowed to use them in career and technical education programs. There are also five AI pilot programs involving generative tools that city officials have already approved, ranging from platforms that help students conduct close analysis of texts to a math program that prompts students to explain their thinking. The five programs are: Quill, Edia, Brisk Teaching, Playlab, and Intel AI-Ready Schools.

Officials said a maximum of 50,000 high school students would participate in those pilot programs, or roughly 17% of all high school students.

How Will Students Learn AI Literacy?

All high school students across the city will be required to complete two 45-minute AI literacy modules every year that cover the basics of AI, as well as issues related to bias and misinformation.

Which Students do the New Screen Time Recommendations Apply to?

The city’s youngest students — from preschool to second grade — are not supposed to use individual laptops and other devices under the new policy. In grades 3-5, students are allowed to use individual devices but for no more than 30 minutes a day, officials recommend. In middle school, the recommended limit is 45 minutes. There are no screen time guidelines for high school.

As school districts across the nation are moving to limit screens, one reason some are allowing devices beginning in third grade: It’s the year state testing begins, and exams are increasingly administered digitally, including in New York.

How Will Teachers be Allowed to Use AI?

Teachers are allowed to use AI tools to help plan lessons, translate materials, or draft communications, according to an Education Department summary of the policy. They may not use AI tools to grade student work, monitor behavior, develop special education plans, or assist with student mental health challenges.

How Will This be Enforced?

Officials didn’t spell out any clear enforcement mechanism for ensuring schools adhere to the AI policy.

Mamdani conceded much of the enforcement will have to happen at the classroom and school level. “Whenever there’s been a shift, teachers have had to be at the forefront,” he said during the press conference. “And so we trust that teachers, principals, superintendents will be there.”

He added that central Education Department officials will subject all new ed tech purchase requests to a “rigorous” review process.

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew, who has recently clashed with Mamdani on several major policy priorities, expressed concern that it will largely fall on “school communities or individual educators to figure out after the fact if what their school uses fits the new policy.”

What About Students Using AI Outside of School?

One of the big critiques of the Education Department’s first draft of the AI guidance from March was that it completely dodged the biggest question on many teachers’ minds: how to respond to students using AI outside of school, including to cheat on writing assignments.

So far, the new guidance doesn’t seem to offer any more specifics on that front. Samuels noted that teachers have been dealing with the AI cheating issue for years (many schools developed their own AI policies while waiting for citywide guidance) and emphasized that schools will need to enlist parents for support.

]]>

Nevada lawmakers propose oversight for state, local agencies using AI

Michael Lyle, Nevada Current — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Nevada Current.

Concerned that Nevada agencies have relied on artificial intelligence without much oversight, state lawmakers are proposing legislation to establish basic standards on how the technology is used by state and local government entities.

Proposed legislation that would require transparency around AI and prevent bias in automated decision making was among the nine bill draft requests approved at the Aug. 27 the interim Government Affairs Committee meeting.

Democratic state Sen. Dina Neal, who recommended the committee pursue the AI legislation, said a variety of government departments integrated AI systems into their agencies “without statutory action.”

“I think that it’s high time that although folks see that there is a benefit to make work more efficient, there is also some risk that I think we need to evaluate,” Neal said.

The proposal will be taken up in the 2027 Legislative Session, which begins Feb. 1.

Agencies, including the Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation and the Department of Motor Vehicles, have implemented AI to aid with the work flow. DETR began using the technology to help with the appeals process for unemployment benefits.

There are questions around its use, said Democratic state Sen. Edgar Flores, who chairs the committee.

“We want to make sure that there is a human that ultimately is making these decisions,” Flores said. He added that lawmakers have heard of situations where people were denied benefits, sought to speak to an actual person during the appeals process, but couldn’t.

“It shuts you down,” he said.

There hasn’t been a review of instances where the system has failed or automation bias may have occurred, and the state needs to determine “how many errors occurred where there was a need for a human response, but the human response did not occur,” Neal said.

Lawmakers anticipate a robust response from state and local agencies when the bill comes up for the discussion.

“When they say ‘everything’s fine,’ then I’m going to say there needs to be an audit to make sure that what you said is fine,” Neal said.

In 2025, 38 states adopted some type of artificial intelligence related policy, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures database.

Neal introduced legislation in 2025 that sought to establish broad guardrails around artificial intelligence companies that sought to set up shop in Nevada as well as the use of the technology in various sectors.

Senate Bill 199 sought to prohibit law enforcement from using AI to generate police reports and teachers from using software to create lesson plans.

It received a wide range of opposition from business industry, law enforcement, and school district employees. The bill didn’t make it out of committee.

President Donald Trump has sought to limit states from regulating AI.

The massive tax and spending legislation passed in July 2025, called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” originally included a provision preventing states from pursuing AI regulations for a decade.

The provision was stripped out of the legislation before its final passage.

Trump signed an executive order in December 2025 seeking, again, to limit states from taking regulatory actions.

Republican Assemblymember Lisa Cole was worried about the state running afoul of Trump’s order.

“I’m just a little concerned that inside of the recommendations language, we’ve got protections against bias in automated decision making,” she said.

However, Neal said she has already looked into “how far the state needed to usurp its own position under 10th Amendment,” which protects states from federal overreach.

“An executive order, although it may state its suggestions, might not necessarily tie the hands specifically of a state,” Neal said.

]]>

The floor, not the ceiling: Moving beyond California’s SB 707 to build real public trust

Alexandra Albert — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0400

Earlier this summer, key provisions of California's Senate Bill 707, known as the Brown Act, came into effect.

Local public agencies across California are understandably now focused on implementing the new mandates of two-way remote participation, accessible web pages and expanded language translations.

Meeting these new legal stipulations is a significant effort. For stretched city clerks, IT departments and public engagement teams, simply checking these boxes by the deadline is a major achievement. However, while meeting the provisions of the law is now a legal necessity, focusing solely on the legal baseline of the legislation risks missing the opportunity to build real public trust.

The Trust Gap

Opening the digital door is a necessary first step to increasing access, but a portal is not a relationship with residents and stakeholders. Recent research reveals a gap between the efforts of public agencies and the lived experience of the communities they serve.

Across North America, fewer than two in five community members believe their views actually influence local decisions. Even more concerning, 60% believe decisions are already made before a public consultation even begins.

Public appetite for participation remains strong, but while people are showing up, filling out forms and logging into remote meetings, many often leave feeling unheard. This disconnect does not stem from a lack of skill or willingness among public sector engagement experts. Instead, it happens when the connection between public participation and the final outcome remains invisible.

True trust is not built by the technology that lets a resident participate, it’s built by what happens after. When community input disappears into a black box, public skepticism grows. To narrow the trust gap, public bodies must shift their focus from managing the logistics of input to fully engaging people in the process, which includes communicating how their input impacted decisions. Participants need to know their time was respected, their input was weighed and the engagement was meaningful.

Closing the Loop

This is where public agencies can build on their workflows by using engagement data to close the feedback loop. When a public comment is received, whether via a remote stream, an email, an online platform, or an in-person workshop, it shouldn’t exist in isolation. By capturing and analyzing participation data at scale, agencies can transform hundreds of scattered comments into clear, actionable insights.

Instead of spending weeks manually sorting through spreadsheets and notebooks, modern AI-driven data tools allow teams to quickly identify key community themes and geographic trends across large sets of qualitative data.

This efficiency returns valuable time to staff, who can focus on strategic questions: What matters most to this neighborhood? Who is missing from the conversation? How can this feedback directly improve the project layout or budget?

More importantly, a structured approach to engagement data enables true traceability. It allows an agency to provide the community with a clear line of sight from input to outcome.

When the public can see a direct summary of what was heard, what changed because of their feedback, and, just as importantly, what could not change and why, the entire process becomes defensible and transparent–and builds trust with members of the community.

Moving to Visible Impact

Far from being hesitant about modern tools, 93% of engagement practitioners see genuine potential in AI to analyze feedback at scale, identify patterns across complex datasets, and improve accessibility and coordination across complex engagement programs.

The willingness to embrace modern technology is already there, agencies simply need the connected systems to support it, which hopefully legislation like that in California prompts.

Strengthening accessibility and translation requirements ensures that a more representative mix of voices can join the conversation. But the ultimate goal of public engagement is to make better decisions and deliver projects with confidence and trust. So, when implementing new requirements, we must ask ourselves a critical question: are we treating compliance as the ceiling of community engagement or the floor?

By using data to close the loop, public institutions can show residents that their participation is meaningful, not just a legal formality. This legislative action is a great reminder that officials are making legislative changes not just to comply with the law, but to transform community consultation into the trust-building mechanism it’s meant to be.

Alexandra Albert is community engagement practice lead at Open Point.

]]>

New AI center announced for St. Louis

Chris Teale — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 13:00:00 -0400

A new center for artificial intelligence supported by several large tech companies was announced last week in St. Louis, Missouri, in a bid to position the region as a leader on AI technology.

The Spirit of St. Louis Innovation Center will have access to high-performance computing and AI resources, which can be accessed by researchers, governments, startups and others in the industry. The center also has committed to using AI for the public good: 20% of its resources and capacity will be dedicated to civic projects that benefit St. Louis and its surrounding region.

Amazon Web Services, Google, NVIDIA, Overture Maps Foundation, WEKA and World Wide Technology will be founding members for the center, which will be administered by GeoSTL, a local nonprofit geospatial and AI economic development entity.

“The creation of the Spirit of St. Louis AI Innovation Center marks a pivotal moment for our region and the broader tech community,” Mark Munsell, executive director of GeoSTL, said in a statement. “With the combined expertise and resources of these extraordinary partners, we are laying the foundation for a transformative collaborative space that will drive the next generation of AI solutions that benefit humanity.”

Once it is fully operational, the center intends to hold what it calls "The Spirit of St. Louis AI Innovation Competitions," a series of challenges in which academia, nonprofits and businesses will look to use AI and tech to solve some of the area’s biggest challenges. Officials said that could include agriculture technology; advanced manufacturing; bio and health sciences; national security; transportation; and supply chain logistics.

The center takes inspiration from St. Louis’ history of aviation, including Charles Lindbergh’s historic “Spirit of St. Louis” flight, which celebrates its centennial next year.

“As pioneering long-distance aviators, Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh relied on maps — the original geospatial databases, to explore our planet,” Erik Lindbergh, chairman of the nonprofit Lindbergh Foundation that is a partner in this effort and others, said in a statement. “The Lindbergh Foundation is proud to be part of the history of ongoing evolution of geospatial information technologies and the future that connects St. Louisans to the many opportunities in this exciting field.”

Regions across the United States have been striving to stand out as leaders on AI, with many looking to do so while investing in local businesses and their workforce. Earlier this year, experts said economic development and encouraging new technologies should move beyond the “incentive wars” where states and localities try to outdo each other on tax breaks and other attempts to woo businesses, often large tech companies.

Meanwhile, a study last year from the Brookings Institution found that there are a number of cities all with the potential to be leaders on AI adoption and use, beyond the usual suspects of Silicon Valley in California; New York City; Austin, Texas; and Washington, D.C. St. Louis could be looking to capitalize on this move away from the traditional technology power centers with this AI center, which officials said “will help advance cutting-edge research, industry application, and workforce development in St. Louis innovation clusters, creating a global ‘digital utility’ that will drive economic growth across the region and beyond.”

The center is expected to formally launch its programming and innovation challenges in the coming months.

“St. Louis has a long history of pioneering the future, and the Spirit of St. Louis AI Innovation Center is no exception,” Ron Kitchens, managing partner of the regional economic development organization Greater St. Louis, Inc., said in a statement. “This groundbreaking partnership will further establish our region as the center for geospatial and artificial intelligence innovation, catalyze economic growth, and attract the nation’s top talent to St. Louis to address humanity’s most pressing challenges. We commend GeoSTL for its leadership and look forward to our continued partnership as the Center expands its programming.”

]]>

Mamdani ends Adams’s Chromebook spending spree

Nick Garber, New York Focus — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by New York Focus.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani is canceling a contract with T-Mobile to hook up New York City public school students’ laptops with cell service. The contract would have cost well over $100 million over the next three years, making the move one of the most significant single cost-cutting measures of Mamdani’s young mayoralty.

New York Focus spotlighted the questionable contract last year, after it was inked by then-Mayor Eric Adams’s administration in the final months of his tenure. The city agreed to pay more than $320 million for 350,000 Chromebook laptops equipped with T-Mobile LTE service, along with up to one million lines of cell service for those computers and other school-issued devices. The T-Mobile portion of the contract cost the city about $3.5 million per month and just under $200 million in total.

Adams signed the contract despite data indicating that the large majority of public school students already have internet at home. City officials had also raised internal concerns about the contract, complaining that it required the city to pay T-Mobile a flat fee regardless of how many lines of cell service were active. The city had approached T-Mobile without soliciting competing offers from fellow city vendors Verizon and AT&T, the critics noted, and it was unclear whether the Department of Education even wanted the internet-connected laptops.

Eight months into his tenure, Mamdani is now terminating the T-Mobile part of the contract, a move first reported by Chalkbeat. Department of Education spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said that the administration views the contract as unnecessary because it replicates an existing program that allows schools to pay $10 a month per child to provide LTE service through Verizon to any student who needs it.

“We know reliable technology access is critical for our students, and our schools are ready to support any family who needs help accessing LTE at home through established internet programs already available to every student through their school,” Brownstein said.

“We appreciate T-Mobile for their support of our students and educators. Ultimately this program, launched under the prior administration, duplicated existing resources at an unnecessary cost. By discontinuing this component of this contract, we are saving taxpayer dollars while continuing to deliver the internet connectivity we know our school communities rely on.”

Brownstein said last week that the administration had instructed school principals to identify families without internet access and give them LTE service before the first day of school on Sept. 10. Although the 350,000 laptops have already been distributed to schools, city officials also told principals that the T-Mobile student plans would end on Aug. 31, Chalkbeat reported.

The move comes amid a broader backlash against education technology, including a state bill introduced this month that would sharply limit the use of screens in classrooms and the distribution of school-issued devices. Mamdani is set to announce new technology rules including a ban on individual screens until third grade, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

Naveed Hasan, an elected member of the city’s school board, commended Mamdani for canceling the T-Mobile contract and urged him to go further in curbing waste in school technology spending and in reviving plans for city-owned tech infrastructure. The school board had grown increasingly skeptical of tech vendors and recently rejected a contract for Oracle software.

The city did not provide an official estimate for how much money would be saved by cutting the contract, which has already been in effect for about a year. The savings may be partially offset by more students receiving LTE service through the Verizon program. But at nearly $50 million per year, the contract was costlier than many of the other programs that Mamdani decided to slash as part of cost-cutting efforts in his first budget earlier this year — like a $9.9 million Department of Social Services consulting contract with McKinsey.

That initial effort helped the city find $1.77 billion in savings over two years, which represents less than one percent of the city’s spending over that period. Mamdani wants to double down on that work, announcing in July that he will ask city agencies to find more savings worth 2.5 percent of their budgets.

]]>

States urge schools to use AI, but leave teachers on their own to stop cheating

Lily Altavena, Chalkbeat — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Chalkbeat.

Paige Wyatt heard plenty from administrators about using AI to generate lesson plans at the school where she taught high school English.

Her students used AI to cheat so frequently she resorted to spending her own money on detection tools. Yet she never got help with what she really wanted: how to effectively catch and stop the cheaters, some of whom were very clearly just copying and pasting from Google’s AI summaries.

Teachers like Wyatt consistently identify cheating as a major concern in the AI era, and 70% of teens report using AI for schoolwork, a Common Sense Media survey published last month found. But that concern is getting little recognition from states. While at least 13 states have passed laws about AI in education, the laws most often direct state agencies and districts to create their own AI guidance, meaning lawmakers have frequently absolved themselves from making tough decisions.

Meanwhile, roughly three out of four states have published information to help guide AI use in education. But a Chalkbeat review found these documents tend to skirt the issue of cheating, offering little in the way of concrete steps to halt or deter students from offloading work to AI. Instead, they dedicate more real estate to AI literacy and ways teachers can use AI for efficiency.

All of that beating around the bush has left educators and districts to their own devices to come up with ways to deter and catch AI-enabled cheaters. It’s become an exhausting endeavor that hasn’t turned up any definitive solutions, educators and researchers said.

There’s no surefire way to detect AI-generated content. Nor is there an agreed-upon definition for cheating: Can students use AI to outline an essay but not write it? Can they use it to copy edit? Some states have crafted acceptable use policies which make some, but not all, of these distinctions.

Wyatt quit her teaching job last year. She didn’t leave solely due to AI, but its impact on her work was a factor.

“We really need real consequences,” she said. “We need workshops for teachers to detect cheating. We need workshops for kids.”

Most of the nation’s 10 largest school districts are developing or have developed more specific policies to try to prevent using generative AI to cheat. But it hasn’t always been easy: New York City delayed the rollout of its AI guidance for months amid fierce backlash, before announcing a new policy this week. Half of those districts explicitly discourage using AI detection tools.

Many of the official responses might underscore the urgency of the problem without helping to address it, which could only increase teachers’ anxiety.

“I think the situation teachers are in feels bad, and feels like they ought to have a solution now that they don’t have,” said Justin Reich, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the host of a podcast about how AI is shaping K-12 education.

Letting AI ‘Run Amok’ Could Ruin Student Learning

Historically, state policymakers haven’t rushed to create laws governing new technology and education.

States didn’t really start to adopt computer science requirements until the 2010s. And while the iPhone launched a smartphone revolution in 2007, the first state restrictions on cell phone use in schools didn’t come until 16 years later, in 2023.

States may be moving faster when it comes to mainstream generative AI, which took off with the advent of ChatGPT in late 2022.

“Folks can’t just hope this will pass. This is a major change, and students are already using it,” said John King, former U.S. education secretary and current chancellor of the State University of New York system. “This isn’t tomorrow’s problem. This is today’s problem.”

The District of Columbia and at least 37 states have issued recommendations for public schools about AI. Their documents range from short webpages to Illinois’ 400-page behemoth. Many define different types of AI, stress that any AI use should still be led by humans, and link to outside resources — some of which have been developed with the support of big AI companies.

But they often devote just a page or a few paragraphs to academic integrity.The documents also seem light on actual guidance and don’t include many citations, Reich said. That’s because there’s little evidence to show how effective AI tools are in the classroom, or what policies would effectively stop cheating.

“If you just let this run amok in secondary schools, all kinds of learning activities will stop,” he said. “We do not know what to do. There’s no evidence-based policy. There’s no basis for development and professional development. Like we’re just making stuff up.”

More than a third of states urge schools not to rely solely on tools that promise to detect the use of AI, citing studies showing they are not effective and incorrectly flag genuine student writing as AI.

But many states then offer little else other than acceptable use policies. In California’s case, the state offers a list of questions for districts to mull when making policies around integrity in addition to an acceptable use policy.

In the absence of hard and fast rules, teachers have reported requiring students to complete more graded work in class, using pencil and paper.

Christopher Harris, the director of the school library system for the Genesee Valley BOCES, a regional district in western New York, wants educators to go further than that and reconsider how they measure learning. Writing may be less of a valid tool to assess if students are learning, now that AI “can suddenly write anything.”

He said students could submit an oral assignment, or teachers could focus on the learning process more than the product by asking students to explain how they respond to feedback when developing a project or presentation.

New York is one of the 13 states that hasn’t published AI resources for educators. Harris’ library system has been developing resources about AI for the state’s educators using grant money.

“I really wanted to help teachers understand they can’t control what kids do with AI,” he said. “The only control they have is their agency in developing assignments.”

Adopting AI Policies Not Straightforward For School Districts

Sara Brescia thought she had a no-brainer policy proposal for her fellow Manassas City Public Schools board members: adding AI misuse to the district’s code of student conduct.

The policy she proposed for the district in northern Virginia — a hotbed for the data centers AI relies on — would prohibit students from trying to pass off AI-generated content as their own. It specified that AI could only be used with a teacher’s permission, and required students to cite AI use. Students would be punished, up to and including with expulsion, for violating any of those provisions.

But other board members voted her idea down in late July. Lisa Stevens, another school board member who is also a teacher according to her LinkedIn page, worried the policy would add a burden onto teachers without giving them any tools to identify AI-generated work.

Brescia is skeptical about the value of those tools.

“We do not have a comprehensive approach,’’ she said. “We have the student code of conduct that says nothing.”

Wyatt said when she left the classroom, students were only becoming more fluent in methods to cheat. They were finding tools like QuillBot to disguise AI-generated writing and make it sound more like student writing.

She’s open to going back to the classroom, if she gets more administrative support to help detect the kind of AI misconduct that felt out of control when she left.

“As a community, we need a support network,” she said.

]]>

Why ‘mundane’ uses are most effective for AI

Jake Segal — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0400

Until recently, one analyst supporting San Jose, California’s 311 system spent nearly a quarter of the workday reading requests filed under “Other Issues.” Residents use this catch-all field to report everything from potholes to broken streetlights. Each submission had to be read, interpreted and sorted so the city could understand what people needed.

So the city gave the sorting to a large language model. The analyst now spends that recovered time identifying patterns, improving service insights and helping departments make better decisions about future services. The backlog shrank and the work got better, and a public servant got back a meaningful part of the day, focusing their judgement where it was most useful.

This is what artificial intelligence in government should mostly look like right now: not the chatbot that finally fixes the Department of Motor Vehicles, not the algorithm that ends homelessness, but the unglamorous tool that gives a caseworker their afternoon back to get real work done.

There’s reason for caution, certainly. Governments have a painful history of using automation for the wrong jobs. Michigan’s MiDAS system, a rules-based fraud-detection program, falsely accused tens of thousands of residents of unemployment fraud, then garnished wages and seized tax refunds. In Arkansas an algorithm used to allocate Medicaid home-care hours left some people with severe disabilities facing sudden cuts they couldn’t meaningfully understand or appeal.

Adjudicating who deserves benefits, who counts as a fraudster, who gets care requires human judgment.

The mundane use cases are different. Case managers, housing staff, workforce navigators, benefits administrators, police officers and analysts spend huge portions of their day on the administrative scaffolding: copying information between systems, filling forms with data they’ve already collected, tracking down missing documentation, wading through eligibility guidelines written in legalese.

About 69% of social workers cite administrative burden as a key driver of burnout, and a majority of police officers report spending more than three hours of every shift on paperwork. The work that actually requires their humanity — building trust with clients, understanding complex circumstances, exercising judgment — gets squeezed into whatever time remains.

There are clear opportunities. Natural language processing can pull structured information out of unstructured documents; smart forms can walk users through complex applications and catch errors before they cascade; chatbots can answer the routine staff questions that might eat up a senior colleague’s afternoon.

None of this requires a technological breakthrough. And critically, none of them touches the question of who is eligible, who is committing fraud, or who deserves care. They sit underneath those decisions, doing work that ideally should never have been a person’s job to begin with.

Our partners have gravitated toward these kinds of projects: a chatbot to help Alexandria, Virginia staff navigate building codes; a real-time document checker for benefits eligibility in New Mexico; a data cleaning and automation tool in San Antonio. None of these will make a magazine cover, they’re not moonshots, but they will give thousands of public servants their time back to focus on what’s most important.

There are hundreds of organic examples like these. Since 2023, San Jose has helped organize a national group of public servants to share what’s working, and the GovAI Coalition now includes more than 900 jurisdictions helping tune the right level of scrutiny to the right problem and train governments to do the work well.

To accelerate these efforts, we have to change the systems around them. Governments should adopt risk-tiered AI governance that moves quickly on low-stakes administrative automation, requires human review wherever errors really matter, and reserves the heaviest privacy, bias and security controls for systems that touch rights, eligibility, or enforcement. In other words, automate the paperwork, not the judgment: use AI to summarize, sort, translate, flag, draft and check; require people to decide, approve, deny, sanction and enforce.

Six months from now, AI will be more capable than it is today. Governments that wait for the technology to settle will be waiting forever, and the people they serve will keep paying the cost of paperwork that should have been automated a decade ago.

The question for public-sector leaders isn’t whether to bet on the frontier of what AI can do, it’s whether to use the tools that already work to give their people back the parts of the job that actually require a person. The real promise of AI in government isn’t replacing public servants, it’s giving them more time to be public servants.

Jake Segal is managing director for the public sector practice of Social Finance, a nonprofit that mobilizes capital toward measurable impact by building and enabling outcomes-focused approaches.

]]>

Data centers are Americans’ least favored development, poll finds

Chris Teale — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 13:00:00 -0400

Data centers are Americans’ least favored development project, behind power plants, office complexes and shopping malls, according to a survey released last week.

The joint survey by the nonprofit Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and consulting group Public First found that just 26% of Americans would support a new data center being built in their communities, compared to 46% that would oppose it.

That makes a new data center the least supported of 10 potential development projects respondents were presented with, far behind the support for new housing (58%), a road or highway (48%) and a solar farm (47%). Even the prospect of a new power plant or electrical infrastructure received more support at 35%.

Opposition to a new data center is so strong, in fact, that the survey found that 49% said they would rather nearby land be left undeveloped, even if it had no other viable uses than a data center.

The poll comes as data centers have become a major flashpoint politically and in local communities all over the U.S. Residents have consistently fought back against higher electricity and water prices, noise and other drawbacks. It’s prompted a response from many policymakers at the state and local level, including moratoriums, legislation and development agreements. But those behind the survey said it also suggests an unease about the growth of artificial intelligence, which data centers help support.

“We’ve seen opposition to data centers grow fast since the start of the year, but this is not just because of concerns about water and energy use,” Seb Wride, head of research and insights at Public First, said in a statement. “It is reflecting growing concern about AI in general. Data center developers are therefore not up against ordinary local resistance to a large building, but on the front lines of an otherwise intangible argument about how fast to move on AI.”

The survey notes that the depth of opposition to data centers on these shores is a “uniquely American phenomenon at the moment,” as a number of other countries are massively in favor of building more themselves. Nigeria, Vietnam, India and Indonesia are among the most supportive of building new data centers, according to the survey.

And the results suggest that concerns about electricity and water usage have broken through among the general public. ITIF and Public First found an increase in the number of people who believe that data centers raise electricity bills, deplete the water supply and are bad for the planet have all jumped significantly between January and July of this year.

Experts said during a webinar hosted by ITIF to coincide with the poll’s release that the data center sector needs to do a better job building relationships with communities to try and allay some of those concerns.

“This is something where industry, particularly all the biggest players, they want to be good citizens; they have those commitments around power, around water, and they want to do that,” said Jarrett Catlin, a policy advisor at trade group TechNet. “I think what we need to see and what we need to figure out is: what does it take to create the public trust between these developers, government institutions, and the public, so that people believe that that is what will happen, and that promises made are going to be promises kept?”

Data centers have proven to be potent politically, too, especially as campaigning for this year’s midterm elections ramp up. Governor candidates in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have already released television ads attacking their opponents for being too supportive of new data centers, and more may likely follow.

The ITIF and Public First poll found support for plenty of potential statewide policies towards data centers, which may give candidates plenty to think about. Requiring data centers to pay their full electricity costs and for any new infrastructure, as well as giving local residents a binding vote on whether a data center can be built in their local area both received overwhelming support as potential policies.

Meanwhile, a temporary pause or moratorium also received strong support, as did repealing any state-level tax breaks currently on offer and requiring minimum distances between data centers and schools and houses. A permanent ban on data centers in a state received a net approval of +20, which was not as high as some other suggested policies.

“This isn't just a case of people becoming more familiar with what data centers are,” Wride said during the webinar. “This is a case of people's center of gravity about what the impact data centers have on local areas is changing. And that's quite a stark shift to happen in just six months. It's not often that you see attitudes move that fast.”

Supporters of data centers remain adamant they must be built to ensure that the U.S. does not fall behind China in the race for AI supremacy.

“America will not succeed in AI if Americans oppose the basic infrastructure needed to build and run it,” ITIF President Daniel Castro said in a statement. “Data centers are to AI what highways were to the automobile: essential infrastructure that makes a transformative technology useful at scale. A country cannot lead the world in AI while opposing the infrastructure that makes that leadership possible. Blocking data centers may preserve some land in the short term, but over time it would leave America with less investment, fewer opportunities, and less ability to compete in the technologies that will shape the economy and national security.”

]]>

White House launches water cybersecurity pilot in Texas

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400

The Trump administration is formally launching a new water sector cybersecurity program Monday in San Antonio that will bring together the Office of the National Cyber Director, Texas Cyber Command, the office of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and private industry partners, according to two people familiar with the efforts.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plans.

The initiative, dubbed Project Watershed 250, will use Texas as the testing ground for a six-month pilot aimed at finding vulnerabilities in water systems and helping utilities address them with private sector cybersecurity and artificial intelligence tools. The administration ultimately plans to expand the model nationwide.

Fox News first disclosed the program’s details Monday after receiving advance materials from the Trump administration and participating companies. The rollout follows Politico and Nextgov/FCW reporting on the plans last week.

“President Trump has cemented America’s leadership in AI security and innovation and is now bringing those exquisite tools to local communities and utilities in Texas and ultimately, across the nation,” National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said in a statement to Fox.

The EPA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will serve as federal partners for the program. Firms including Microsoft, Reflection AI, Palo Alto Networks and industrial cybersecurity company Dragos will participate alongside ONCD and Texas Cyber Command. The utilities will receive the assistance at no cost, according to Abbott’s office.

The program was already under development before recent cyberattacks that officials suspect may be tied to Iran targeted community water systems in Minnesota and several other states. State officials have said affected water systems continued operating safely and experienced no known effects on public health. The FBI and CISA have been assisting with the response.

Water providers are widely considered among the country’s most vulnerable critical infrastructure sectors because many have limited cybersecurity personnel, funding and technical expertise. Current and former officials have also warned that poorly secured remote-access systems can give hackers a pathway into the equipment used to manage water treatment and distribution.

Texas Cyber Command, headquartered in San Antonio, was created last year with $135 million in state funding to protect state and local government systems and coordinate responses to cyberattacks. The organization is led by retired Navy Vice Adm. TJ White, a former commander of U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and the Cyber National Mission Force.

]]>

State audit finds room for improvement in NYC’s AI governance

Annie McDonough — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 11:00:00 -0400

The capabilities of artificial intelligence have grown leaps and bounds in three years. But in the three years since state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli found “incomplete and ad hoc approaches” to AI governance in New York City agencies, progress on filling in the gaps has been comparatively modest.

In a new follow-up report to his office’s 2023 audit on AI governance in New York City agencies – such as guardrails for use and systems to assess risks – DiNapoli found the city has “made progress on AI oversight efforts” but that work remains on some important oversight and accountability measures. “The city still does not maintain a complete inventory of AI tools used across agencies, lacks consistent citywide standards and has not established a formal process for public concerns related to AI systems,” he said in a statement to City & State.

The initial audit, which spanned January 2019 to November 2022, surveyed AI governance systems at a sample of city agencies including the Administration for Children’s Services, the New York City Police Department, the Department of Education and the Department of Buildings.

Recommendations that DiNapoli issued to the city in 2023 have only been partially implemented as of this April, his office found in the new report. The city has made progress on steps like developing definitions for AI, publishing preliminary use guidance on generative AI, convening a citywide steering committee and starting a risk-assessment process for AI tools. But one recurring concern raised in the report is the voluntary and self-reported nature of some of the city’s policies, from risk assessments conducted on a “consultative or voluntary basis” to relying on city agencies to self-report what AI tools and systems they use.

“We appreciate the state Comptroller’s partnership and focus on this important topic and are reviewing the report and its recommendations,” Ray Legendre, a spokesperson for the city’s Office of Technology and Innovation said in a statement. “This March, our annual Local Law 35 report featured a record number of algorithmic tools documented. Under the leadership of Chief Technology Officer Lisa Gelobter, we look forward to building on this foundation and advancing the responsible use of AI tools in city government.”

New York City isn’t alone here. DiNapoli released a report last year finding that New York state does not have an effective AI governance framework in place for its agencies.

New York City has pursued multiple strategies for how to use and control AI tools, from then-Mayor Bill de Blasio’s creation of an algorithms management and policy officer and publishing of an AI Strategy document, to then-Mayor Eric Adams’ AI Action Plan. As City & State previously reported, Mayor Zohran Mamdani hasn’t brought about any kind of sea change in agencies’ use of AI, though he’s expressed some skepticism about AI.

But the city’s use of AI has been highly scrutinized – nowhere more than in New York City Public Schools, which has delayed its release of guidance on how students and teachers can use AI. Some advocates have pushed for a moratorium on generative AI use in schools until appropriate guidance can be worked out. With classes set to start on Sept. 10, that guidance has yet to be released. Mamdani told City & State last week that news on that is coming “soon.”

Under Mamdani, the Office of Technology and Innovation hasn’t produced its own vision or new guidance for how city agencies should use or engage with AI tools, though existing uses appear to largely continue. Thanks to laws passed by the City Council last year, the administration is required to create a new Office of Algorithmic Accountability that will be tasked with analyzing algorithmic tools used by city agencies (which will include AI), evaluating their risks and creating a process for public complaints. That office was due to be created by June.

City Hall told City & State last month that the office was moving ahead and that six positions have been allocated in the budget, but no further announcements on the office’s work or plans have been made.

]]>

The irony of scarcity: When risk and opportunity reside between agencies

Matt Weisner — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 10:00:00 -0400

Conventional wisdom assumes scarcity discourages development. In reality, scarcity often does the opposite. As water, land, transmission capacity and other critical resources become more constrained, the rights associated with those resources often become more valuable. The same conditions creating concern in government offices may be creating opportunity in investment offices.

This is the irony of scarcity.

For planners, water managers and local governments, scarcity is usually understood as a constraint. For investors, scarcity can be the asset itself. One actor's constraint is another's opportunity. As the saying goes, don't invest in the gold miners. Invest in the picks and shovels.

What originally caught my attention was not artificial intelligence itself. It was the investment logic behind it. Spend enough time reading about hyperscale data centers and AI infrastructure and you eventually encounter a remarkably consistent thesis: don't bet on the technology, control the resources the technology needs.

Investors do not need to understand every possible future. They need to identify which resources are likely to retain value across multiple futures. Farmland with power, fiber and transmission access remains valuable regardless of which technology wins. Water rights remain water rights. Mineral rights have survived multiple energy booms. Pore space may become an important asset in the carbon management era.

AI expansion is accelerating demand for electricity, transmission capacity, water, and supporting infrastructure. Carbon capture is creating demand for pore space, pipeline networks, and other forms of resource infrastructure. Different technologies are competing for many of the same scarce resources.

Local governments do not have the same optionality as investors. A water allocation, zoning approval, transmission corridor, or subsurface storage permit represents a commitment made in one place at one moment in time. If a project underperforms, relocates, or evolves in unexpected ways, the investor's asset often retains value. The community's commitment remains.

Yet the challenge is not simply scarcity. The challenge is how scarcity is governed. Colorado governs water, land, energy and emerging technology through separate agencies, permits and definitions. Each institution manages its piece competently, yet many of the most important risks emerge between them. Water, land use, energy and economic development are deeply interconnected, yet the institutions responsible for them are organized around increasingly specialized responsibilities. Specialization produces expertise, but it can also make it harder to see how decisions in one domain affect another. The result is fragmentation.

Every generation introduces new technologies, but those technologies still depend on the same underlying resources: water, land, energy, and infrastructure. This dynamic is what originally drew me into researching carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Ask five different Colorado agencies what CCUS means and you may receive five different answers, some of them contradictory.

That observation became the basis of research I recently published in Risk Analysis, applying a novel adaptation of the bow-tie framework to CCUS development in Colorado. The framework itself is derived from the oil and gas industry's Shell HEMP risk-management model, underscoring how lessons from one resource era often reappear in the next.

One of the central findings of that research was that many of the most important risks associated with CCUS did not reside within a single agency or resource system. They emerged between them. The term CCUS often groups together technologies with very different implications for water, land use, energy demand and long-term stewardship.

When those distinctions blur, so do the impacts being measured and discussed. Colorado tracks water through a consumptive and non-consumptive framework largely developed around irrigation, municipal supply, and traditional industrial uses. Water injected underground for carbon dioxide storage does not fit neatly into either category, and current governance lacks a consistent way to define, measure, and account for it.

The larger lesson is what happens when new technologies interact with governance systems built around older assumptions. Emerging technologies often create new forms of resource use that do not fit neatly within existing categories. Governments are then forced to evaluate novel demands using frameworks originally designed for very different circumstances.

Data centers reveal a similar pattern. Data centers increasingly compete for water, power, transmission capacity, and land, yet the governance systems responsible for those resources are often separate from one another. Similar projects may face very different standards across neighboring jurisdictions. Competent local decisions are being made, but there is often no mechanism connecting them across jurisdictions.

A community that declines a project may simply watch the investment move elsewhere because the underlying resource remains valuable. Scarcity does not disappear when one jurisdiction says no. In many cases it makes the opportunity more attractive to the next jurisdiction in line, creating competition not only for the resource itself but also for suitable sites. Responsible stewardship does not eliminate competition. In many cases, it intensifies it.

Communities may compete for development while depending on many of the same underlying resource systems. A county that says no may simply watch a neighboring jurisdiction say yes. The project may move, but the competition does not. The water system often does not move. Neither does the electric grid, the labor market, or much of the infrastructure supporting growth. The investment opportunity may be local, but the consequences of scarcity often are not.

Communities can conserve water, invest in efficiency, and carefully manage growth, yet still find themselves constrained by decisions made elsewhere. Similar tensions appear throughout the American West, where scarcity is increasingly managed across interconnected systems rather than individual jurisdictions. The Colorado River illustrates this challenge well. States, municipalities, utilities, agricultural interests, and water users operate under different authorities yet remain connected through the same physical system.

Understanding those interactions begins with seeing the system as a whole. Counties, municipalities, regulators, utilities, and resource managers each see a different part of the system. No single institution naturally sees the whole picture. The challenge is not necessarily a lack of information. It is that information is often organized across agencies, disciplines, and governance systems designed to manage individual resources rather than interconnected ones.

Climate change is often discussed as a failure of political will or rationality. I tend to see it as a visibility problem. People and institutions generally make decisions based on the information available to them. The challenge is that climate and resource risks often emerge across agencies, disciplines, jurisdictions, and time horizons. No single actor naturally sees the entire system.

Improving governance often means making those interactions visible. The challenge facing governments is not simply managing scarcity, but seeing the system clearly enough to understand how scarcity, opportunity, and risk interact.

Climate change is a systems problem. Universities are organized around disciplines. Governments are organized around agencies. Climate change ignores both.

Ultimately, the challenge is governing interactions that no single institution is designed to see in full.

Matt Weisner is an independent researcher at Colorado State University.

]]>

States are mostly compliant with website accessibility rule, report finds

Chris Teale — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:00:00 -0400

State governments are well on their way to complying with a federal rule on making their websites accessible to disabled people ahead of next year’s deadline, according to a new report.

The National Association of State Chief Information Officers found last week that most states report they are either partially or mostly compliant with the Department of Justice rule to ensure websites comply with various internationally recognized standards from the World Wide Web Consortium under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

NASCIO found that just two states reported they are minimally compliant or non-compliant at this stage. Implementation of that rule was pushed back by a year in April, meaning states and localities with populations above 50,000 people now have until April 26, 2027 to comply, while those with populations under 50,000 have until April 26, 2028.

But the group found that states remain worried about their ability to investigate complaints about non-compliance and remedy them. NASCIO reported that only half of states have a formal complaint investigation process at the state or agency level, while 17% have an informal or ad hoc process. And 51% of states said they have limited capacity for remediation, with 69% noting they do not have the resources or staff to remediate all their websites and applications. Conducting that remediation once an issue is discovered also takes between 30 and 90 days for 64% of respondents.

Despite those remaining challenges, NASCIO said state governments appear to be happy about the DOJ’s extension.

“Generally, states view the DOJ Final Rule extension announced earlier this year positively, noting that it will allow states to continue executing and refining current plans while reinforcing expectations that priorities and urgency remain unchanged,” the report says. “The consensus is that the extra year provides more time to continue momentum, develop program maturity, formalize structures and operationalize accessibility at scale.”

This latest push for accessibility began under former President Joe Biden’s administration in 2024, when the DOJ opened the rulemaking process. Since then, advocacy groups have sounded the alarm repeatedly about numerous accessibility issues in government websites, but President Donald Trump’s administration placed the rule under review just as the deadline was approaching, before pushing it off for another 12 months. That delay prompted a lawsuit from the National Federation of the Blind.

The rule required that government websites comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, known as WCAG. Those standards include that websites be easily navigable; provide services like text captions for audio and video; add alternative text for images; and not be designed to provoke seizures or physical reactions. But disability groups said it means continued unequal access to government services.

Local governments must also comply with the DOJ’s rule, which NASCIO notes have struggled as much or more than state governments with a lack of resources and staff. Forty-seven percent of states said they are working with their localities to help implement this rule, mostly with information and education, shared resources and outreach. NASCIO said states are “willing partners” on digital accessibility with their local governments, but only when those programs are mature enough to expand.

However, that leaves 53% of states that say they are unable to provide support to their local governments, NASCIO found, with operational capacity and resources as the main barriers preventing it. That separation between states and their local governments on this issue has been described as “non-collaborative and without formal communication channels,” the report found.

And it’s not clear that the one-year extension will be enough, as 51% of respondents said they are unsure if the extension will allow more local collaboration, while 26% said they do not expect to collaborate more with their localities. It may be a victim of different expectations, NASCIO said.

“Respondents mentioned that local governments tend to expect hands-on remediation; however, when these localities rely on outdated systems, the amount of hands-on support needed to remediate increases due to the system’s age,” the report says. “Even the most operational and resourceful digital accessibility programs may struggle to provide that type of support on a consistent basis.”

]]>