Explore the vast range of titles available.

Currently, production and comprehension are regarded as quite distinct in accounts of language processing. In rejecting this dichotomy, we instead assert that producing and understanding are interwoven, and that this interweaving is what enables people to predict themselves and each other. We start by noting that production and comprehension are forms of action and action perception. We then consider the evidence for interweaving in action, action perception, and joint action, and explain such evidence in terms of prediction. Specifically, we assume that actors construct forward models of their actions before they execute those actions, and that perceivers of others' actions covertly imitate those actions, then construct forward models of those actions. We use these accounts of action, action perception, and joint action to develop accounts of production, comprehension, and interactive language. Importantly, they incorporate well-defined levels of linguistic representation (such as semantics, syntax, and phonology). We show (a) how speakers and comprehenders use covert imitation and forward modeling to make predictions at these levels of representation, (b) how they interweave production and comprehension processes, and (c) how they use these predictions to monitor the upcoming utterances. We show how these accounts explain a range of behavioral and neuroscientific data on language processing and discuss some of the implications of our proposal.

For hundreds of years, states have sought to intervene in the affairs of others in a surreptitious manner. Since the professionalization of intelligence services in the aftermath of the Second World War, this behaviour has become known as covert action, which—for generations of scholars—has been defined as plausibly deniable intervention in the affairs of others; the sponsor’s hand is neither apparent nor acknowledged. We challenge this orthodoxy. By turning the spotlight away from covert action and onto plausible deniability itself, we argue that even in its supposed heyday, the concept was deeply problematic. Changes in technology and the media, combined with the rise of special forces and private military companies, give it even less credibility today. We live in an era of implausible deniability and ambiguous warfare. Paradoxically, this does not spell the end of covert action. Instead, leaders are embracing implausible deniability and the ambiguity it creates. We advance a new conception of covert action, historically grounded but fit for the twenty-first century: unacknowledged interference in the affairs of others.

Many analysts argue colorblindness as the reigning ideological buttress of a historically distinct form of structural white supremacy, color-blind racism. In contrast to slavery and legal segregation, color-blind racism is theorized as covert and highly institutionalized. As such, analyses of contemporary racial reproduction often emphasize the structure of colorblindness, particularly the habitual routines and discursive patterns of everyday white actors. Though invaluable, this work may conceal whites’ innovation in reproducing, revising, and at times resisting white supremacy and corresponding logics. As opposed to focusing on the structural elements of colorblindness, I elevate colorblindness as a culturally recursive accomplishment grounded in an epistemology of ignorance—that is a process of knowing designed to produce not knowing surrounding white privilege and structural white supremacy. Qualitatively analyzing 105 family wealth analyses produced by white college undergraduates researching racial inequality and the wealth gap, I identify four epistemic maneuvers by which students creatively repaired a breach in normative colorblindness. Demonstrating innovative means by which ordinary whites bypass and mystify racial learning highlights their vested commitment to maintaining and creatively defending the ideologies that buttress racial domination and white supremacy. As such, this research additionally advises updating strategies for challenging whites’ colorblindness in efforts to advance racial justice.

What are the effects of partisan electoral interventions on the subsequent character of the regime in the targeted country? Partisan electoral interventions have been frequently used by the great powers ever since the rise of meaningful competitive elections around the world. Such interventions have been found to have significant effects on the results of the intervened elections determining in many cases the identity of the winner. Nevertheless, there has been little research on the effects of partisan electoral interventions on the target’s subsequent level of democracy. This study investigates this question, testing three hypotheses derived from relevant political science literatures. I find suggestive evidence that covert electoral interventions have a significant negative effect on the target’s democracy increasing its susceptibility to a democratic breakdown. I also find preliminary evidence that the identity of the intervener has a mediating effect on the negative effects of covert interventions.

In 2014, Russia denied that its military was assisting separatists in eastern Ukraine, despite overwhelming evidence. Why do countries bother to deny hostile actions like this even when they are obvious? Scholars have argued that making hostile actions covert can reduce pressure on the target state to escalate. Yet it is not clear whether this claim applies when evidence of responsibility for the action is publicly available. We use three survey experiments to test whether denying responsibility for an action in the presence of contradictory evidence truly dampens demand for escalation among the public in the target state. We also test three causal mechanisms that might explain this: a rationalist reputation mechanism, a psychological mechanism, and an uncertainty mechanism. We do find a de-escalatory effect of noncredible denials. The effect is mediated through all three proposed causal mechanisms, but uncertainty and reputational concern have the most consistent effect.

Covert action has long been a controversial tool of international relations. However, there is remarkably little public understanding about whether it works and, more fundamentally, about what constitutes success in this shadowy arena of state activity. This article distills competing criteria of success and examines how covert actions become perceived as successes. We develop a conceptual model of covert action success as a social construct and illustrate it through the case of ‘the golden age of CIA operations’. The socially constructed nature of success has important implications not just for evaluating covert actions but also for using, and defending against, them.

Aim: The use of covert means is any information gathering intelligence operation (secret police activity) in which the authorised authorities of the State seek to obtain new knowledge in the course of administrative and criminal proceedings without the knowledge of the holder of the information, by limiting the right of self-determination. In dictatorships, this form of exercise of state power is also dominated by arbitrariness. Constitutional states place the use of secret means on a public law basis. This study aims to demonstrate that it is possible to regulate acts of public authority that are at the heart of secrecy by means of legal instruments whose core is publicity. Methodology: The objective outlined above can only be achieved if the dogmatic and moral characteristics of the legislation are harmonised with the specific characteristics of the secret police. The task is not easy. Legislation is always about the future and is always based on abstract prognosis; covert intelligence aims to discover the past, the present and the future, and the knowledge to be acquired is always unique and concrete. Finidings: The abstract nature of the regulation and the uniqueness of the intelligence operation resolve the contradiction between publicity and secrecy. What is public is the rule, what is secret is the application of the rule to a specific situation. However, legislation can become fully formalised when it no longer imposes limits on the operation of state power, but merely authorises it, opening the way to free discretion. In such a case, the guise of legality conceals an untrammelled power. Value: Law that serves humanity is an effective means of preserving social order. Secret data-collection requires a limitation of rights, yet it is indispensable to combat violations (principle of necessity), provided that it does not cause more serious harm than the threat against which it is used (principle of proportionality). Aim: The use of covert means is any information gathering intelligence operation (secret police activity) in which the authorised authorities of the State seek to obtain new knowledge in the course of administrative and criminal proceedings without the knowledge of the holder of the information, by limiting the right of self-determination. In dictatorships, this form of exercise of state power is also dominated by arbitrariness. Constitutional states place the use of secret means on a public law basis. This study aims to demonstrate that it is possible to regulate acts of public authority that are at the heart of secrecy by means of legal instruments whose core is publicity. Methodology: The objective outlined above can only be achieved if the dogmatic and moral characteristics of the legislation are harmonised with the specific characteristics of the secret police. The task is not easy. Legislation is always about the future and is always based on abstract prognosis; covert intelligence aims to discover the past, the present and the future, and the knowledge to be acquired is always unique and concrete. Finidings: The abstract nature of the regulation and the uniqueness of the intelligence operation resolve the contradiction between publicity and secrecy. What is public is the rule, what is secret is the application of the rule to a specific situation. However, legislation can become fully formalised when it no longer imposes limits on the operation of state power, but merely authorises it, opening the way to free discretion. In such a case, the guise of legality conceals an untrammelled power. Value: Law that serves humanity is an effective means of preserving social order. Secret data-collection requires a limitation of rights, yet it is indispensable to combat violations (principle of necessity), provided that it does not cause more serious harm than the threat against which it is used (principle of proportionality).

Harmful lies are nothing new. But the ability to distort reality has taken an exponential leap forward with “deep fake” technology. This capability makes it possible to create audio and video of real people saying and doing things they never said or did. Machine learning techniques are escalating the technology’s sophistication, making deep fakes ever more realistic and increasingly resistant to detection. Deep-fake technology has characteristics that enable rapid and widespread diffusion, putting it into the hands of both sophisticated and unsophisticated actors. While deep-fake technology will bring certain benefits, it also will introduce many harms. The marketplace of ideas already suffers from truth decay as our networked information environment interacts in toxic ways with our cognitive biases. Deep fakes will exacerbate this problem significantly. Individuals and businesses will face novel forms of exploitation, intimidation, and personal sabotage. The risks to our democracy and to national security are profound as well. Our aim is to provide the first in-depth assessment of the causes and consequences of this disruptive technological change, and to explore the existing and potential tools for responding to it. We survey a broad array of responses, including: the role of technological solutions; criminal penalties, civil liability, and regulatory action; military and covert-action responses; economic sanctions; and market developments. We cover the waterfront from immunities to immutable authentication trails, offering recommendations to improve law and policy and anticipating the pitfalls embedded in various solutions.

In this paper, we consider covert communication with multiple relays and an active warden who not only sends jamming signals but also aims to detect the covert transmission. In the relay system with the active warden, the most critical factor is the channel between the relay and the warden, as the warden leverages this channel to transmit jamming signals while trying to detect the presence of covert communication. To mitigate the impact of the active warden, we propose a relay selection scheme that selects the relay with the minimum channel gain to the warden. We analyze the performance of the proposed scheme and demonstrate how increasing the number of relays leads to performance improvements based on analytical results. Numerical results show that the analytical predictions closely match the simulations, and our proposed scheme effectively increases the covert rate while minimizing the threat posed by the active warden.