Essays Tagged "Lawfare"

Page 1 of 3

25 Years of Mass Surveillance Is Enough

Twenty-five years since 9/11, tech and political shifts have increasingly pitted mass surveillance against constitutional rights.

  • Cindy Cohn and Bruce Schneier
  • Lawfare
  • September 14, 2026

One of the many legacies of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 is the government-wide shift from targeted surveillance—such as individual wiretaps or pen register/trap and trace orders—to mass surveillance techniques—such as tapping into the internet backbone or mass collection of telephone or internet metadata. The legal and technical architecture of modern mass surveillance, initially framed as a necessary defense against terrorist threats, has grown far beyond that justification and national security in general. Mass surveillance is now a routine tool used by law enforcement. ICE uses it in…

AIs as Modern Genies

With AI we have built genies. Old stories told us how this goes.

  • Barath Raghavan and Bruce Schneier
  • Lawfare
  • September 2, 2026

In April, an artificial intelligence (AI) agent conducting a routine task at a company hit a snag, tried to solve it, and soon ended up deleting the company’s database along with all of its backups. In July, OpenAI asked an unreleased AI model to attempt a hacking test. Instead of staying in the isolated box the developers had put it in, the model hacked onto the open internet and into another company to steal the answers. And as reported in August, an AI agent booked someone into a full gym class by figuring out how to cancel other people’s reservations. In all three cases, the AI completed the task it was given—but in ways that ran counter to its controllers’ intentions…

The Promptware Kill Chain

Prompt injection attacks against AI models are not simple attacks; they are the first step of a kill chain. Understanding this gives defenders a set of countermeasures.

  • Bruce Schneier, Oleg Brodt, Elad Feldman and Ben Nassi
  • Lawfare
  • February 13, 2026

The promptware kill chain: initial access, privilege escalation, reconnaissance, persistence, command & control, lateral movement, action on objective

Attacks against modern generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) pose a real threat. Yet discussions around these attacks and their potential defenses are dangerously myopic. The dominant narrative focuses on “prompt injection,” a set of techniques to embed instructions into inputs to LLM intended to perform malicious activity. This term suggests a simple, singular vulnerability. This framing obscures a more complex and dangerous reality. Attacks on LLM-based systems have evolved into a distinct class of malware execution mechanisms, which we term “promptware.” In a …

Like Social Media, AI Requires Difficult Choices

Social media was supposed to amplify our voices, but it ended up controlling us. Will AI be the same?

  • Nathan E. Sanders and Bruce Schneier
  • Lawfare
  • December 1, 2025

In his 2020 book, “Future Politics,” British barrister Jamie Susskind wrote that the dominant question of the 20th century was “How much of our collective life should be determined by the state, and what should be left to the market and civil society?” But in the early decades of this century, Susskind suggested that we face a different question: “To what extent should our lives be directed and controlled by powerful digital systems—and on what terms?”

Artificial intelligence (AI) forces us to confront this question. It is a technology that in theory amplifies the power of its users: A manager, marketer, political campaigner, or opinionated internet user can utter a single instruction, and see their message—whatever it is—instantly written, personalized, and propagated via email, text, social, or other channels to thousands of people within their organization, or millions around the world. It also allows us to individualize solicitations for political donations, elaborate a grievance into a well-articulated policy position, or tailor a persuasive argument to an identity group, or even a single person…

Digital Threat Modeling Under Authoritarianism

Authoritarian threats, coupled with ongoing corporate surveillance, demand that we rethink how we use digital technologies.

  • Lawfare
  • September 22, 2025

Today’s world requires us to make complex and nuanced decisions about our digital security. Evaluating when to use a secure messaging app like Signal or WhatsApp, which passwords to store on your smartphone, or what to share on social media requires us to assess risks and make judgments accordingly. Arriving at any conclusion is an exercise in threat modeling.

In security, threat modeling is the process of determining what security measures make sense in your particular situation. It’s a way to think about potential risks, possible defenses, and the costs of both. It’s how experts avoid being distracted by irrelevant risks or overburdened by undue costs…

AI Will Write Complex Laws

AI is poised to help legislators write more intricate laws, exercising increasing control over the executive.

  • Nathan E. Sanders and Bruce Schneier
  • Lawfare
  • January 16, 2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) is writing law today. This has required no changes in legislative procedure or the rules of legislative bodies—all it takes is one legislator, or legislative assistant, to use generative AI in the process of drafting a bill.

In fact, the use of AI by legislators is only likely to become more prevalent. There are currently projects in the US House, US Senate, and legislatures around the world to trial the use of AI in various ways: searching databases, drafting text, summarizing meetings, performing policy research and analysis, and more. A Brazilian municipality …

The CrowdStrike Outage and Market-Driven Brittleness

The outage is another consequence of companies’ sacrifice of resilience for expediency.

  • Barath Raghavan and Bruce Schneier
  • Lawfare
  • July 25, 2024

Friday’s massive internet outage, caused by a mid-sized tech company called CrowdStrike, disrupted major airlines, hospitals, and banks. Nearly 7,000 flights were canceled. It took down 911 systems and factories, courthouses, and television stations. Tallying the total cost will take time. The outage affected more than 8.5 million Windows computers, and the cost will surely be in the billions of dollars—­easily matching the most costly previous cyberattacks, such as NotPetya.

The catastrophe is yet another reminder of how brittle global internet infrastructure is. It’s complex, deeply interconnected, and filled with single points of failure. As we experienced last week, a single problem in a small piece of software can take large swaths of the internet and global economy offline…

Backdoor in XZ Utils That Almost Happened

The recent cybersecurity catastrophe that wasn’t reveals an untenable situation, one being exploited by malicious actors.

  • Lawfare
  • April 9, 2024

Last week, the internet dodged a major nation-state attack that would have had catastrophic cybersecurity repercussions worldwide. It’s a catastrophe that didn’t happen, so it won’t get much attention—but it should. There’s an important moral to the story of the attack and its discovery: The security of the global internet depends on countless obscure pieces of software written and maintained by even more obscure unpaid, distractible, and sometimes vulnerable volunteers. It’s an untenable situation, and one that is being exploited by malicious actors. Yet precious little is being done to remedy it…

Building a Cyber Insurance Backstop Is Harder Than It Sounds

Insurers argue that a government backstop would help them cover catastrophic cyberattacks, but it’s not so simple.

  • Bruce Schneier and Josephine Wolff
  • Lawfare
  • February 26, 2024

In the first week of January, the pharmaceutical giant Merck quietly settled its years-long lawsuit over whether or not its property and casualty insurers would cover a $700 million claim filed after the devastating NotPetya cyberattack in 2017. The malware ultimately infected more than 40,000 of Merck’s computers, which significantly disrupted the company’s drug and vaccine production. After Merck filed its $700 million claim, the pharmaceutical giant’s insurers argued that they were not required to cover the malware’s damage because the cyberattack was widely attributed to the Russian government and therefore was excluded from standard property and casualty insurance coverage as a “hostile or warlike act.”…

The Myth of Consumer Security

  • Bruce Schneier
  • Lawfare
  • August 26, 2019

The Department of Justice wants access to encrypted consumer devices but promises not to infiltrate business products or affect critical infrastructure. Yet that’s not possible, because there is no longer any difference between those categories of devices. Consumer devices are critical infrastructure. They affect national security. And it would be foolish to weaken them, even at the request of law enforcement.

In his keynote address at the International Conference on Cybersecurity, Attorney General William Barr argued that companies should weaken encryption systems to gain access to consumer devices for criminal investigations. Barr repeated a common fallacy about a difference between military-grade encryption and consumer encryption: “After all, we are not talking about protecting the nation’s nuclear launch codes. Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, e-mail, and voice and data applications.”…

1 2 3

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.