A Frozen Society: The Long Term Implications Of NSA’s Secrets

History Future Now has been considering the historical and future implications of the NSA files that have been leaked bit by bit by Edward Snowden over the past few months.   History Future Now is very worried.

Edward Snowden’s act of handing over classified NSA files to The Guardian and The New York Times newspapers has polarised the opinions of many people into two opposing groups.

The Pro-Snowden group argues that Snowden is a selfless hero, should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, because he has exposed illegal acts by Western security services.  Spying on a scale that our elected officials were supposedly unaware of, despite the political chain of command.

The Anti-Snowden group argues that Snowden is a naive idealist whose actions have made society more dangerous.  The release of information, it is argued, provide terrorists with sufficient knowledge of the British and American security services to avoid detection when they hatch their heinous plots.  

There are two fundamental flaws with the Anti-Snowden group argument: If you have nothing to hide, they argue, you have nothing to worry about.

First, there are so many laws that are archaic and forgotten, that every single citizen is likely to break a law at some point.  In addition, most people have some transgression in their personal lives they prefer to keep private.

In the first case those in control of the data might use it actively or passively against its citizens.  If you are an elected politician, for instance, the chances are that you have done something wrong at some point in your life or have something private that you want to hide.

Security services could use this information to “screen” politicians and their supporters.  This has happened before.  J. Edgar Hoover, as the founding Director of the FBI, until his death in 1972, had detailed files on many US politicians, including President Kennedy and President Harry Truman.  Both considered firing him.  Neither was brave enough.  In the early 1950s Joseph McCarthy led a witch hunt of US civil servants, politicians, actors and the like, looking for alleged Communists.  Their access to information was amateurish compared to what is possible by the NSA and GCHQ today.

Information can also be used passively, simply to inform a politician that records of misdemeanours exist can end a political career. The threat of exposure can be a subtle one, compromising a politician's stance on a particular issue.  The NSA would possibly not be above using illegally gained material in this way.  

In the next chapter we explore the concept of law breaking in order to further an important social cause. Slavery was legal in the US south until 1865. Women did not get the vote in the UK until 1928.  African – Americans faced huge legalised forms of discrimination until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Interracial marriage only became legal in most US states in 1967.  Homosexuality only became legal in all of the US in 2003.

All of these legal changes were preceded by civil strife.   The activists who fought to change society were frequently breaking the law.

Imagine how hard it would be now to lead one of these movements.  All of your communications with other supporters could be monitored. 

Government spies would know who is connected to who.  They would know your private secrets.  You could be either rounded up, or co-opted through blackmail. 

Occasionally the security services announce that a major terrorist plot has been discovered and stopped.  We collectively breathe a sigh of relief at a near disaster avoided.

But the same tools that were used to stop those terrorists could have stopped women from getting the right to vote and black children from going to school with white children.

Sometimes change is needed.  By allowing a few unelected people to have control over our secrets we may end up with a frozen, unchanging, society.

This is not a good thing.