Sure, but the phrase "plausible deniability" just reeks of government and corporate double-speak: "you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt I did it, so I can keep on doing it." Plausibly denying something is just a propaganda technique.
Did Google know or not? Did Google participate or not?
"Google is racing to encrypt the torrents of information that flow among its data centers around the world in a bid to thwart snooping by the NSA and the intelligence agencies of foreign governments, company officials said Friday."
The phrase has that smell when used by the person denying. If an action or inaction is taken to preserve plausible deniability, it is smelly.
But when used by an observer after the fact, it just means that we have no way to know they knew, unless there is proof. So if they say they didn't know, it is a believable statement.
Based on the fact that they decided to accelerate their internal encryption projects back in September, 2 months ago ( http://www.informationweek.com/security/government/nsa-fallo... ), I'm guessing they thought it might be possible, and in the wake of the Snowden revelations they decided it's very plausible (or someone showed them that slide ahead of time) and so they now effectively "know", though they're not keen to cooperate.
I think we have enough information for Google to plausibly deny involvement.
Sure, but the phrase "plausible deniability" just reeks of government and corporate double-speak: "you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt I did it, so I can keep on doing it." Plausibly denying something is just a propaganda technique.
Did Google know or not? Did Google participate or not?
This should make it clear I think: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-06/business/41831...
"Google is racing to encrypt the torrents of information that flow among its data centers around the world in a bid to thwart snooping by the NSA and the intelligence agencies of foreign governments, company officials said Friday."
re: bediger4000
The phrase has that smell when used by the person denying. If an action or inaction is taken to preserve plausible deniability, it is smelly.
But when used by an observer after the fact, it just means that we have no way to know they knew, unless there is proof. So if they say they didn't know, it is a believable statement.
Based on the fact that they decided to accelerate their internal encryption projects back in September, 2 months ago ( http://www.informationweek.com/security/government/nsa-fallo... ), I'm guessing they thought it might be possible, and in the wake of the Snowden revelations they decided it's very plausible (or someone showed them that slide ahead of time) and so they now effectively "know", though they're not keen to cooperate.