Conor Friedersdorf

The Future of Privacy Is Plausible Deniability

Say that you’re 70 and you unexpectedly learn that you require a surgery that will keep you in the hospital for a week. You adamantly don’t want any of your grandkids to find the will in your house that reveals who among them gets what. You suspect they’ll be snooping against your wishes. And you have 12 hours at home to prepare. You could pick a hiding spot that they probably wouldn’t guess but might find. You could put the will in a padlocked trunk and take the key with you. But what if they still find some way into the trunk? In fact, your grandson does find a way to remove the wooden bottom, look through its contents, replace them, and reseal the trunk without you even knowing.

Hiding something is one way to keep it secure. Overwhelming would-be snoops with plausible decoys is another way. Yet virtually no one’s email inbox is deliberately seeded with fake messages so that prying eyes cannot entirely know what is real. Imagine a startup called Plausible Deniability LLC.

The Latest Snowden Leak Is Devastating to NSA Defenders

[Commentary] Consider the latest leak sourced to Edward Snowden from the perspective of his detractors. The National Security Agency's defenders would have us believe that Snowden is a thief and a criminal at best, and perhaps a traitorous Russian spy.

In their telling, the NSA carries out its mission lawfully, honorably, and without unduly compromising the privacy of innocents. For that reason, they regard Snowden's actions as a wrongheaded slur campaign premised on lies and exaggerations.

Snowden defenders see these leaked files as necessary to proving that the NSA does, in fact, massively violate the private lives of American citizens by collecting and storing content -- not "just" metadata -- when they communicate digitally. They'll point out that Snowden turned these files over to journalists who promised to protect the privacy of affected individuals and followed through on that oath.

The NSA collects and stores the full content of extremely sensitive photographs, emails, chat transcripts, and other documents belong to Americans, itself a violation of the Constitution -- but even if you disagree that it's illegal, there's no disputing the fact that the NSA has been proven incapable of safeguarding that data.

There is not the chance the data could leak at some time in the future. It has already been taken and given to reporters. The necessary reform is clear. Unable to safeguard this sensitive data, the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect and store it.

Former NSA Chief Clashes With ACLU Head In Debate

Is the National Security Agency keeping us safe? That was the question that MSNBC used to frame a debate at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which The Atlantic co-hosts with The Aspen Institute.

The debate featured General Keith Alexander, former head of the National Security Agency; former Congresswoman Jane Harman; and former solicitor general Neal Katyal spoke in defense of the signals intelligence agency.

Anthony Romero of the ACLU, academic Jeffrey Rosen and former Congressman Mickey Edwards acknowledged the need for the NSA, but argued that it transgresses against our rights with unnecessary programs that violate the Constitution. The two teams also spent time arguing about Edward Snowden and whether his leaks were justified. By the end of the 90 minute session the civil libertarian team handily beat the national security state team in audience voting.

Anthony Romero of the ACLU was at his strongest when pressing the other team to explain why the American people shouldn't have a right to privacy in their metadata, given how revealing it can be. He rejected the notion that the phone dragnet is permissible because, although the NSA keeps records of virtually every phone call made, it only searches that database under a narrow set of conditions.

Edward Snowden's Other Motive for Leaking

A few pages into Glenn Greenwald's newly released book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency, and the US Surveillance State, there is a fascinating passage that transforms my understanding of why the contractor leaked NSA secrets.

The familiar rationale still applies. Edward Snowden wanted to inform Americans about the actions of our government and to spark a debate about mass surveillance. "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name," he reportedly wrote in a note to his collaborators, "and that which is done against them."

Actually, though, he had a second motive. He was also trying to reach elites. In leaking, he hoped to inform and influence a small subculture of tech influencers. Regardless of how Americans reacted to his leaks, he hoped they'd awaken to the ideology and reach of the surveillance state, and that at least some programmers would be inspired to thwart it with technology.

Michael Hayden's Unwitting Case Against Secret Surveillance

[Commentary] Is state surveillance a legitimate defense of our freedoms? The question was put to Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, during a debate in Toronto.

Alan Dershowitz joined him to argue the affirmative. Glenn Greenwald and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian argued against the resolution.

"State surveillance is a legitimate defense of our freedoms," Hayden said, restating the resolution. "Well, we all know the answer to that. It depends. And it depends on facts."

In doing so, Hayden unwittingly echoed a core belief of the national security state's critics. He's absolutely right: To judge whether a particular kind of surveillance is legitimate, one must know exactly what's being considered and its purpose.