McCarthyism and the Concern for Privacy

Whenever the topic of privacy comes up I often hesitate to speak out. I have strong feelings about the subject and a passionate diatribe in response to a passing comment is not a good way to keep friends. I have concerns for privacy in the digital age and I want to share why I find data collection so dangerous, but a friendly conversation is not the place to do it. There is one statement, however, that can cause me to break my silence. It’s one you have probably heard (or maybe even thought): “But I am doing nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, so why should I care?”

You have nothing to hide? Why should you care? History is filled with examples of why that simple thought is so dangerous. There are so many reasons to care about this, but I want to focus on just one.

America has had its share of insanity. There are clear examples of mass hysteria and literal witch hunts (starting with the Salem witch trials in the 1690’s and moving forwards), but I want to look at a single near-modern example of how dangerous the combination of innocent ‘data’ and a public boogeyman can be.

Let’s go back in time and take a close look at the 1940’s and 1950’s. Right after World War II, the Cold War kicked off. We stepped into an era where Public Enemy Number One was no longer a person, but an idea. That ‘evil’ idea was Communism. The Soviet Union was ascending as a frightening and spreading superpower. The Truman Doctrine was kicked off in 1947 with the hope of countering the Soviet’s spread. America slid into a period of anti-communism mania that would change society in many ways.

In 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee held nine days of hearings into possible communist propaganda in movies and films. Yes, that really was the name of a U.S. House of Representative investigative committee. The HUAC began to subpoena Hollywood types (screenwriters, directors, actors, etc.) and asked them to testify about known or suspected membership in the Communist Party, association with its members, or support of its beliefs. Remember, it was not illegal to be a Communist or associate with others who espoused those ideas, but we had a real and frightening Communist enemy so all communists became frightening. Now we hunted for people with an idea.

This committee would ask those being questioned to name names of colleagues with Communist affiliations. This was just the beginning. The committee returned again in the early 1950’s to continue their investigations. They seemed to see a massive web of dissidents based on affiliation. No bad deeds were required. Something as simple as showing up at a house party 20 years earlier was enough to get you called in for questioning. It is a paranoid black spot in our history that had serious repercussions for a lot of professionals. It got worse when private companies began to make participate in the fear. Major media companies started to blacklist people (See the Waldorf Statement) based on little to no evidence. Just being subpoenaed by the government’s anti-communist committee was enough ‘cause’ for you to lose your job and not be able to find another. Why would you be subpoenaed? Who knows? Did you go to a coffee shop where ‘Communist’ meetings were held? Did a close friend become a Communist? You could be roped in and forever tarred when you hadn’t done anything wrong. It was especially bad if you were actually a member of the Communist party (something that was not illegal) ten years before.

Was there any actual evidence that Communists were using movies to break the U.S.? Not really, but evidence doesn’t seem to matter when you are start a war on an idea.

Another big player during this period is the man for whom the era of communist-fearing paranoia is named: Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy did not participate in the House Un-American Activities Committee, but he was one of the leading drivers in the fight against the Second Red Scare. The actions that took place in the 1950’s gave us the term ‘McCarthyism’. Quoting Wikipedia:

During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that were later declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

The most notable examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.

Can you imagine how horrible that era would have been if they government had access to more than just people’s testimony? What would have happened if they had just the Metadata on every single person in the country? The fearful consequences would have been even greater.

Who you message, call, or e-mail can tell us a lot about your network. With just simple metadata we can find you ‘guilty by association’ for holding ideas that you are not actually guilty of holding. It may be wrong of me, but I can’t help but draw parallels to modern times. Do you or any of your friends hold ideas that may become unpopular in ten or twenty years? If you are religious, you may have already noticed that some of your beliefs are being condemned as ‘backwards’ or wrong. Do you think that will stop in the future? If your or your acquaintance’s current beliefs go out of fashion, a motivated enemy will have a record of every person you have talked to. And that’s just the Metadata!

You probably carry around a device that keeps a record of everywhere you go. Location data is just as dangerous when paranoia strikes. There is a record of nearly everywhere you have been since they started logging your phone’s location. Were you at a Starbucks at the same time as a future terrorist? You wouldn’t know, but the government does. Did you go to a church in your younger years with someone who ends up being marked for questioning because they believe something ‘wrong’ or were a member of the wrong group? You could be held guilty by the public and suffer the consequences, even if you are entirely innocent.

It’s even worse with the revelation that there has been the collection of browsing habits and the actual content of your communication: apparently a lot of that was and is being collected (if not retained).

We don’t know what the trigger will be for the next boogeyman to rise up as something to attack. It could be anything. All it takes is for the wrong people to become fearful, and the next ‘war on <idea>’ will start. People will be damned by what they say, even if it is said in private (or what they thought was private) between friends years before. Even if what they say isn’t wrong when it was said! People will be judged by what their close friends say. A massive web of connections and inferences is available for anyone who has access to the data. A simple e-mail or social media post can be taken and twisted by a motivated agent. We are loading up the armory of future McCarthys with all of the ammunition they need to do horrible damage to you and to society. All it takes is one spark for another paranoid witch hunt to begin.

Sure, no one is actually looking at you when your data sits in a massive data warehouse, but when that data becomes relevant or certain ideas are labeled as ‘dangerous’, it’s there for discovery. They don’t even have to question your friends. They just run a search and you are caught in a net built by our indifference to the surveillance going on. What was once ‘no evidence of wrongdoing’ becomes the noose that is used to hang you in the future.

You say you have nothing to hide, but the innocent things you say or believe now can be enough to make you guilty in the eyes of the fearful mob. I hope what you aren’t hiding doesn’t come back to haunt you. It’s happened before.

Privacy Matters.