Talk:Plausible deniability/Archives/2013

SIGN YOUR POSTS!!
Sorry if I'm editing wiki posts in the wrong way; first post. Anyway, the following link really explains the concept of linguistic plausible deniability.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/164

...and goes a long way towards explaining a nebulous concept, in my opinion.

Burton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.141.30 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

type ~ after your post. Thank you. Travb 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't understand
ok, but i don't understand what the phrase means in this context:

'"Hidden" volumes may be concealed within other [encrypted file system] volumes, providing "plausible deniability"'

meaning that you can deny that such encrypted files exist or that you don't know whether they exist? i don't get it. - Omegatron 23:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * found it: http://www.freeotfe.org/docs/plausible_deniability.htm#plausible_deniability - Omegatron 23:54, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * It means that you can deny such encrypted files exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.5 (talk • contribs)

This entry is completely biased
"No less controversial was the removal, some say kidnapping, of Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power in February 2003."

The FACTS have not been determined, nor are likely to be in this situation. The above statement does not take into account the possibility that Aristide resigned, which is the offical position of the United States Government.

"In a terse description of the timeline, [U.S. Secretary of State]Powell said that Aristide telephoned U.S. Ambassador to Haiti James Foley on Saturday evening to ask for advice and decided resigning would be the best course of action." (CNN.com Monday, March 1, 2004)"




 * Aside from this factual omission, the entire entry is biased in its overall tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.73.107 (talk • contribs)

Exhibit A for use in demonstrating plausible deniability.
Aside from this factual omission, the entire entry is biased in its overall tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.106.142 (talk • contribs)


 * That should be "its" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.22.136 (talk • contribs)

Forgive the Typo...now please explain
Again, aside from the nitpicking of my grammar, please explain the biased tone and factual mistakes in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.106.142 (talk • contribs)

Explaining the bias
Entering this discussion for the first time: It sounds biased to me as well, mostly because it uses as examples current events that are controversial, such as Guantanamo Bay and Aristide, and it presents opinions as facts. The cross-reference to Extraordinary rendition -- a highly controversial topic -- is a red flag as well. OTOH the use of the Independence Day movie is a good example and really helps to illuminate the meaning of "plausible deniability."

I would remove the paragraphs about Guantanamo and Aristide. They add no additional insight into the meaning of the phrase, but they make it sound like the author has an axe to grind.

Another suggestion: Change phrases like "The doctrine had two major flaws" to something like "Many observers believe the doctrine had two major flaws." This will give the article a less biased tone. I think it's good to mention Watergate because the phrase "plausible deniability" really gained widespread use at that time. But couch the discussion in terms of opinions (e.g., "some people believe") rather than in terms of absolutes. This does not water down the article; it actually makes it more credible.

Finally, if you choose to keep the Aristide paragraph, I took the liberty of correcting the date in it from 2003 to 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.127.3.10 (talk • contribs)

Instant People
Another suggestion: Change phrases like "The doctrine had two major flaws" to something like "Many observers believe the doctrine had two major flaws."

Nope, don't do it. The phrase "The doctrine had two major flaws" sounds like it's from the author. The phrase "Many observers believe..." has just invented other people that may also believe the doctrine is flawed. Who are these other observers and where did the author hear about them? If you want to change it, change it the other way and make it obvious that the statement is biased: "This author believes the doctrine has two major flaws". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.6.126 (talk • contribs)

Why I deleted these two paragraphs
I deleted the two paragraphs in this article:


 * The doctrine is currently the focus of much attention by investigative reporters looking into abuses in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan where the rampant use of private contractors to supply everything from food and machines to prison guards and interrogators to the US military has led a situation in which plausible deniability has become the norm. Because the private sector workers are not subject to military law, and because much of the work is done overseas in war zones, no one knows for sure how these employees can be held accountable in the event that they commit illegal acts.


 * No less controversial was the removal, some say kidnapping, of Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power in February 2004. Accounts are conflicting, and the US government denies any wrongdoing, but witnesses report that the plane that flew Aristide out of Haiti was a US unmarked jet that was being manned by a combination US Marines and a private security detail employed by the same corporation that supplies the US President and other VIP's with security guards. Again, it appears the US government used private sector employees to perform what amounted to a US military operation to remove Aristide from power.

The reasons why are: There is no source (footnotes) for these arguments. Adding these two examples actually weakens the entire article. They are POV, by "investigative journalists" (the original authors words). As another person wrote here:
 * first
 * second


 * It sounds biased to me as well, mostly because it uses as examples current events that are controversial, such as Guantanamo Bay and Aristide...I would remove the paragraphs about Guantanamo and Aristide. They add no additional insight into the meaning of the phrase, but they make it sound like the author has an axe to grind.

There are already documented cases of the CIA using "Plausible denial" (or as the author incorrectly calls it, Plausible deniability) in their own internal cables, memos, and torture manuals from the 1950's and 1960's.

There is NO case (that I am aware of) of the CIA using "Plausible denial" in the case of Iraq and Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Adding this irrelevant, unproven information makes a solid historical term become a conspiracy theory term.

Again, American jingoists can argue the validity of "Plausible denial" of the CIA using the terms in the case Iraq and Jean-Bertrand Aristide as they do here:


 * The FACTS have not been determined, nor are likely to be in this situation. The above statement does not take into account the possibility that Aristide resigned, which is the offical position of the United States Government.

But there can be no argument that the CIA used the terms in the 1950's and 1960s because the White House and the CIA documents have now been declassified.

I have noticed that the original author is resistant to change. I hope this is not the case with my revisions. I think this article now stands as a much more solid scholarly work.Travb 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone should note the use of this type of denial is immoral.


 * It is important to note, because the existence of morality allows this sort of denial. That is, humans in an amoral society would not need to falsely deny; they could, but the act might not have a term or happen too frequently. Therefore, plausible deniability would only be ensured in the presence of some social mores against lying or fraud. Thus, it is immoral in moral situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.234.241 (talk • contribs)


 * If you can do it relativly NPOV, I welcome it. I think people will draw the conclusion that it is immoral already, without someone saying it. But if you feel it is necessary, go for it, be bold. Travb 12:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments about immorality of plausible deniability, anon. I kinda lost your argument, not because it was poorly written, it was actually VERY well written, but simply because I don't like to get into the sociological/psychology of morality. I simply see things as greviously immoral, such as Plausible deniability, the government using tens of thousands Americans as guinea pigs for experments, or many of the other things our government has done; I don't have to explain exactly why these acts are immoral, simply because they are blatantly immoral. Anyway, what I am trying to say is you would make a great psychologist and I would be a lousy one, becuase the subject bores me. NICE JOB. Travb 14:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

on morality
I've been trying to get the wording straight if anyone could identify the unclear portions of the argument we could change themTyler Nash 19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr. Nash, I majorily overhauled the "on morality" section. Unfortunatly I deleted more than edited. I wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say. You need to refine your writing style. You write like some lawyers or very educated professor. Your ideas, those that I can understand, are very intuitive and igenous. I was very, very impressed with your thinking. But your ideas are written so complexly is is difficult sometimes impossible to understand what you are trying to say.


 * It is harder to convey complex ideas in an easy to read manner than to convey complex ideas in a complex manner. I am a law student and I run into both types of cases and case books all the time. Difficult cases that take 20 times to read. Your paragraphs are like these difficult cases, and I don't have the patience to try and predict what you mean when this is simply a fun hobbie.


 * You can add back all of these ideas, but please try to explain what you are trying to say.


 * Please remember, you solicited people to edit this section. I did my best. Travb 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was confusing. My professors tell me I occasionally lapse into crypticisms, a practise which sadly I find entertaining. You're certainly right about it being harder to express complex ideas simply. I will try again to construct the argument, but let's not forget that some complex modes require complex language (hence, metaphors). I will try to elucidate using examples and the first person. --Tyler Nash 01:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad I can help, getting rid of such words as "elucidate" would be a good start. I don't know what that means :) Travb 01:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As this section is currently written, it sounds quite POV. In addition, it sounds like original research. Even if the claim that plausible deniability is immoral is not controversial (and I doubt that it is, very), I don't think it's appropriate to philosophize about it here. If someone were to find references of other notable people who have said something similar, then those would be an excellent thing to summarize and cite in this article. I am deleting this section for now. If anyone has such references and would like to rewrite the section (as a report of what has been said elsewhere), go right ahead. Torgo 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deniability wikieditors, welcome to Plausible deniability we are glad you are here
I just merged Deniability into this article. Because:


 * 1) they refer to the same subject
 * 2) now everyones combined brain power, intellegence, and expertise on the subject is focused on one page
 * (the Deniability had some great examples of Deniability and also some great ways of refering to things which none of us here ever thought about.

I kept every sentence of Deniability and transfered all of the good ideas and info to this article, except for one sentence which is covered in detail here in much more depth: Plausible_deniability

I didn't use the merge tags, because I have dealt with the merge tags in the past and they take forever and usually are never done anyway, not because there is no desire, but because no one wants to bother with the move. By the time there is some concensus, months later sometimes, I am not interested in the subject anymore.

Deniability wikieditors, WELCOME to Plausible deniability we are glad you are here and look forward to your ontinued wonderful and intellegent edits and contributions to this interesting subject.

Signed:Travb 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Explaining Libby Deletion
I removed the following, because it is both biased and inaccurate. It is simply untrue that Cheney authorized Libby to leak Plame's identity. Cheney authorized Libby to leak a prewar National Intelligence Estimate that tended to show that Iraq did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. Thus, this is in no way an example of "plausible deniability."


 * Lewis Libby claims he was told by Vice-President Cheney to disclose the identity of Valerie Plame and her work for the CIA, if it is true that George W. Bush authorized this leak as Libby claims the President used the doctrine of plausible deniability. Being the Commander-in-Chief he has the authority to declassify information thus protecting Libby and Cheney from committing an illegal act. However the President went on to claim moral indignation stating,


 * “I want to know the truth.”


 * "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."


 * "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."


 * "If the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."


 * All an effective use of the smokescreen of plausible deniability as he knew that because he had already declassified the information no crime had been committed, however the President may have come undone as according to a number of news sources in 2004: “Mr. Bush was also asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Ms. Wilson's name - which might or might not have violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Mr. Bush said “yes””. For one of the news sources for the above quote please see:

Signed:VaneWimsey 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your deletion, it avoids edit wars. I could care less whether it stays or goes myself.Travb (talk) [[Image:Police_Man_No.png|25px]] 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Government documents

 * 1) Church Committee IV. Section C Subsection 5 Page 277: "Plausible denial'" increases the risk of misunderstanding. Subordinate officials should describe their proposals in clear, precise, and brutally frank language; superiors are entitled to, and should demand, no less
 * 2) Church Committee Reports United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Senate, Nov. 20, 1975, II. Section B Covert Action as a Vehicle for Foreign Policy Implementation Page 11 Non-attribution to the United States for covert operations was the original and principal purpose of the so-called doctrine of "plausible denial." Evidence before the Committee clearly demonstrates that this concept, designed to protect the United States and its operatives from the consequences of disclosures, has been expanded to mask decisions of the president and his senior staff members.
 * 3) CIA telegram "I believe that our involvement to date through Conein is still within the realm of plausible denial."...A. If we keep him in place, what are consequences for...1. Plausible denial
 * 4) Chile 1964: CIA covert support in Frei election detailed; operational and policy records released for first time "be provided in a fashion causing (Eduardo Frei Montalva president of Chile) to infer United States origin of funds and yet permitting plausible denial"
 * 5) CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents "Among the documents found in the training files of Operation PBSUCCESS and declassified by the Agency is a CIA document entitled 'A Study of Assassination.' A how-to guide book in the art of political killing, the 19-page manual offers detailed descriptions of the procedures, instruments, and implementation of assassination." The manual states that to provide plausible denial, "no assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded."

Media

 * 1) New York Times Castro Study Plot finds No Role by White House, November 21, 1975, page 52: The (Church Committee) conceded that to provide the United States with "plausible denial" in the event that the anti-Castro plots were discovered, Presidential authorization might have been subsequently "obscured". (The Church Committee) also declared that, whatever the extent of the knowledge, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson should bear the "ultimate responsibility" for the actions of their subordinates.

Signed:Travb (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Plausible deniability in government documents
...

Move
Move request retracted by nominator Travb (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

''Please vote below by typing / cutting and pasting *support OR *oppose and if desired, a short reason why. Travb (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Approve I propose moving this article to Plausible denial. Rationale: The proposed name is shorter, easier to say, and used more historically (see above for historic examples).Travb (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Plausable deniability is the correct definitionary term. Plausible Denial is largely an American English version of the term. If people are talking generally about the term, certainly in International English, they say Plausible deniability. You issue a "plausible denial" but the general topic is "plausible deniability". FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is definitionary? Do you mean dictionary? If so, what dictionary? Travb (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For one, OED Online, s.v. plausible: "plausible deniability n. Polit. (orig. and chiefly U.S.) (the possibility of) denying a fact (esp. a discreditable action) without arousing suspicion; the method of achieving this." Even regardless, by the combination of their constituent words, "plausible deniability" is a property whereby one is able to deny plausibly, whereas "plausible denial" is the act of denying plausibly. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Plausible deniability is not merely denying plausibly, it is the situation of being able to deny plausibly. Someone may plausibly deny while not having plausible deniability, while someone may have plausible deniability without ever actually issuing a denial. "Plausible deniability" is furthermore, rightly, the far more common term, and I see no reason why the nominator would think that "plausible denial" is the more historical term and it is the more etymologically correct term. —Centrx→talk • 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please clarify See above for historic examples of the use of Plausible denial You are incorrect, Mr. Centrx. Travb (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Centrix, a plausible denial and plausable deniability are two different things. (Travb: what don't you understand about what Centrix said?) Paul August &#9742; 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Plausible deniability is not merely denying plausibly, it is the situation of being able to deny plausibly. He is basically saying that: Plausible denial is more than plausible denial, it is being able to deny with plausibility. He is attempting to define the word, using the same verbs in the word itself to define the word. "while someone may have plausible deniability without ever actually issuing a denial." Denial is a verb and the root of deniability. They are the same meaning. Further, I can write the same thing using my proposal: "Plausible denial is not merely denying plausibly, it is the situation of being able to deny plausibly. Someone may plausibly deny while not having plausible denial, while someone may have plausible denial without ever actually issuing a denial." I hope this clarifies why I am confused. The second sentence is factually incorrect, as I show above Travb (talk) 03:28, 17 July
 * The distinction is between being able to deny and actually making a denial. —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article talks about actual examples of plausible denial, see sections: Plausible_deniability and Plausible_deniability, both of these sections, the majority of the article is dealing with actual examples of plausible denial. Also, please retract your statment that "I see no reason why the nominator would think that "plausible denial" is the more historical term.", based on historical documents above. The problem I see with putting an article up for move, is there are a lot of people who vote on the move, who never worked on the article before, so have no historical basis or understanding to base their vote on. All 3 of these users have never edited Plausible deniability page before, whereas the vast majority of the work on this article is my own, except for one section, Plausible_deniability which I moved and integrated into this article from Deniability, which these three editors never worked on either. I appreciate their vote, but I ask all future voters to base their vote on the historical documents and examples in the article, and don't put to much value into confusing word games. Travb (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read the article, and the only example I can see of plain plausible denial is King Henry, and perhaps the trivia which I did not read, which may not even belong in the article. Editing the article does not give you a monopoly on understanding the English language. According to those sources, "Plausible deniability" is, outside of use in the CIA, the same age as "plausible denial". And, "plausible" and "deniability" had the relevant meanings far before "plausible denial" was constructed by some individual or small group writing a government report. This is not a vote. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the historical documents above did you not read that section? Because what you state is factually incorrect. There are several examples of historical documents using the term "plausible denial" in the actual article, for example, Plausible_deniability has two, maybe you didn't read down that far? I can't figure out any other reason in WP:GF why you would say "the only example I can see of plain plausible denial is King Henry, and perhaps the trivia which I did not read". I can list all of the historical documents in the article here which use the word "plausible denial", if you wish, or you can retract your two statments based on the evidence I have provided. The two statments are: "the only example I can see of plain plausible denial is King Henry, and perhaps the trivia which I did not read, which may not even belong in the article." and "I see no reason why the nominator would think that "plausible denial" is the more historical term." Or you can come up with more factually incorrect information, which will further paint yourself into a corner. "According to those sources, "Plausible deniability" is, outside of use in the CIA, the same age as "plausible denial"." What sources? I have provided 5 sources which state that your statment "I see no reason why the nominator would think that "plausible denial" is the more historical term." is factually incorrect, you have provided confusing word games, 2 factually incorrect statments, and a second confusing word game, being able to deny and actually making a denial which I showed has no basis in the article. This is not a vote. What is it then? Why is it so hard for people on the internet to admit they are wrong? This is people's achilles heel, which is so easily exploited. You simply can't admit that you are incorrect, so you come up with even more incorrect statments, and to support those incorrect statments, you come up with even more incorrect statements. It is a snowball effect. My question is, when will it end? Will you admit that you were incorrect? Or will you keep defending yourself with even more incorrect statments, which I will point out. Travb (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You must mean using the actual phrase "plausible denial". Yes, this is used, but it is used to refer to the CIA's "plausible denial" scheme. The correct, standard name of the concept is still "plausible deniability". An article specifically about some CIA "plausible denial" program could warrant a title of "Plausible Denial", as a proper name. —Centrx→talk • 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for that retraction on the two incorrect statments made. I am also waiting for your sources for this statment: "According to those sources, "Plausible deniability" is, outside of use in the CIA, the same age as "plausible denial"." and now I await sources for this statment: "The correct, standard name of the concept is still "plausible deniability." Where do you get this information from? Travb (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I revised my original statement about not recognizing any cause for historical precedence of "plausible denial". I do not know what is the second "incorrect statement" you are referring to. The OED has use of "plausible deniability" from 1974 and, it being a 2005 draft revision, they may not have exhausted finding antedates in the literature. "Plausible deniability" is 3 times more common on a Google Books search, 5 times more common on a ProQuest search (recent and historical newspapers, magazines, and academic journals), and 7 times more common on a Google Internet search. The meanings of the words "deniable" and "denial" extend back to the 16th century: deniable means "that can be denied"; denial means "the act of refusal", "the assertion of untruth", or "the denying of the existence or reality of a thing". —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Retracting Request for move I have no access to the Oxford English Dictionary, so I will take your word for it. I wish you would have written this in the first place, it would have saved us a long debate. But that said, I think your argument has better weight, you are right, and I am wrong. I am retracting my move suggestion, which I believe I can do, as the creator (I know the creator of deletions can do this). Now that you are involved with this page, I hope you add some of your knowledge and wisdom. Thank you for a spirited debate. your first entry really strained my brain. You seem very intellegent, and you are a formiable debate foe. Best wishes in your future edits, Mr./Ms. Centrx. Travb (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * May we be foes only in debating, and occasionally at that! You have made a good article. —Centrx→talk • 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Morality of plausible deniability in cryptography
It appears to me that the section headed Morality is lacking somewhat in regard to the application of of plausible deniability in cryptography. Would someone with a good background in moral philosophy have a go at improving this section, please. DFH 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Broader than "Government" and "Actors"
Having determined that I have been a victim of the big "P.D." even in my more Local circles (church and even family, not just politics and large organizations) I appreciated the "reminder", on a talk page here, as to its morality or lack of. But although getting A's in psychology in college I have been startled to slowly be refreshed to terminology regarding plain ol' CROOKED PEOPLE.

This year I am reminded about this "term" of PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. Wonderful to read here!!

But last year I discovered Wikipedia's "PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE" and its definition and discussion too was like a Light shining on the dark (vaguely wordless) reality I have been living with.

The year before, a good friend sent me an article from Psychology Today regarding the functional, even very successful, Sociopath, a wonderful article. (from Wikipedia: "Sociopath" :callous unconcern for the feelings of others... attitude of irresponsibility and disregard... incapacity to experience guilt...)

A person or two I have had to have in my life in the last few years have these Very Tricky, Very Unnerving, actually Very mysterious traits and abilities. (i.e. polished deceivers).

I WOULD LOVE A CONNECTION in Wikipedia regarding the connection at least of the first two topics, and even as it relates to its motivation which goes into trickery and lack of empathy or conscience, i.e the third topic. I actually feel to some degree they PLAY OFF EACH OTHER, and at least should be referenced to each other in the 3 different articles.

Anyone wanna make a stab at bridging these topics together? I think it would be very helpful. Thank you.

warmly (as well as more fully informed) 24.30.190.242 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Kevin Rohrig
 * that is a great idea. Plausible deniability is an important topic. Travb (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

was under the impression that plausible deniability had a longer history and wider use than just the CIA? This article is way too narrow and biased Takeitupalevel 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, plausible deniablity is certainly much broader than this. When a man asks his date to come up to his apartment to see his art collection, he is employing plausible deniablity. He is really asking her to come to his apartment for sex; if she is offended by this proposition, he can plausibly claim that he really did want her to see his art. ike9898 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed to talk page

 * Simalarly, a Wall Street trader who trades on the basis of inside information can be prosecuted for violating insider trading statutes, but if the trader can devise an alternative reason for making that trade, perhaps the investigators won't look beyond that.


 * Sometimes these machinations could confuse Machiavelli—or even a Jesuit.


 * (The Inquisition didn't need to worry about this consideration, because the Auto da Fé would destroy any marks that torture had left. However, many modern torture victims survive, to testify or even write books. Even a simple disappearance is tricky to manage.)

These additions seem off topic, one seems like a user's opinion, and are unsourced. Travb (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

deniability in computer networks
Many AUPs, TOSs and other three-letter policies from network providers include language which holds users accountable for all traffic that went through access based on their credentials, whether or not they were aware of this. Therefore, users can plausibly deny and still be punished for inappropriate usage. Can someone give me an opinion on whether or not this is relevant to mention in the article? horse dreamer 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

bad definition?
The first paragraph currently starts off with, Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in governments and other large organizations.
 * This is a terrible definition, and the supporting paragraphs don't do much to help. Plausible deniability, according to the start of the article, is a general governmental or management style, instead of the much more directed form it really takes where that style is created, but due to exterior forces- namely that there is at least a theoretical need to deny something. The article should start off with something more like the re-definition that follows later on, Plausible denial involves the creation of power structures and chains of command loose and informal enough to be denied if necessary. The idea was that the CIA (and, later, other bodies) could be given controversial instructions by powerful figures—up to and including the President himself—but that the existence and true source of those instructions could be denied if necessary; if, for example, an operation went disastrously wrong and it was necessary for the administration to disclaim responsibility. 76.247.130.128 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be more?
Although I don't consider myself an expert, I feel this article may be rather narrow in its scope. I am quite certain that the phrase 'plausible deniability' can refer also to those social situations in which a speaker deliberately uses ambiguity to mask his or her true intentions, in order to avoid the risk of damaging his or her relationship with the listener were that intention to be expressed directly.

For example, depending on the relationship at the time of asking, the question: "Would you like to come in for a coffee?" can be far preferable to the question: "May I have sex with you?", as the speaker retains the opportunity to deny that sex was ever on his or her mind, should that interpretation prove unacceptable to the listener or should the listener challenge the speaker's intentions in some way.

As well as affording the speaker relative safety, such ambiguity as a socio-linguistic device also benefits the listener – he or she need only to decline the literal offer (in this case, the coffee) and is spared the possible embarrassment of having to decline the implied activity (in this case, sex).

Would somebody care to include such a section in this article (with better examples, maybe)? SP1R1TM4N (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixed metaphors
Whoever would have thought that a chain had rungs? They do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.92.147 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

94.125.16.11 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You 'moderators' of WikiPedia are NAZIS. --Author Unknown, sources plausibly deniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.14.228 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links in the external links section
Hello! I'm new to editing articles, just wanted to let y'all know that out of the external links below the only active one is Covert action in chile 63-73. The wikisource link goes to a non-existent page, the ass. archives/research center and the PDF links both fail to open. Not sure where to go from there but this seems important, I got here from the current events relating to the NSA debacle. I put the working link in bold font below. cheers. Sections of the Church Committee about plausible denial on wikisource.org Church Committee reports (Assassination Archives and Research Center) Church Report: Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973 (U.S. Dept. of State) Original 255 pages of Church Committee "Findings and Conclusions" in pdf file

50.152.146.90 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)