Not too deep: Privacy, resistance, and the incorporation of social media in background checks

In May 2016, the United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued “Security Executive Agent Directive 5” (SEAD-5) (U.S. ODNI, 2016) authorizing the collection, use, and retention of social media information for the personnel security clearance process (PSCP), a process put in place to screen applicants for eligibility for national security and public trust positions. The incorporation of social media was a watershed moment for this process as social media, and even information from the entire Internet, had not been allowed into the investigation process before. The integration was not without resistance to the implementation, though, and backstage concerns about privacy emerged in Congressional hearings. What is most interesting to note, however, is that the resistance was for the most part in support of privacy for the potential employees of whom were receiving the check and the government’s obligations for the information collection; however, there was little, if any, mention of deeper, possibly problematic privacy concerns for the social media platforms and their mediated connections that co-create a second, derivative type of content beyond the access of their users. This paper examines the hearing “Incorporating social media into federal background investigations” in response to the SEAD-5 to see what the U.S. Congress did and did not discuss at the hearing and explores potential explanations for the inclusions/omissions, ultimately answering how those in charge of policies could have overlook deeper privacy complexities, and evaluating what this can mean for government, privacy, and policy researchers.

“The United States Cannot Afford to Lag Behind Russia”: Making the Case for an American Nuclear Icebreaker, 1957-1961

Between 1957 and 1961, members of Congress spearheaded efforts to gain authorization for the U.S. Coast Guard to construct a nuclear-powered icebreaker. This article uses congressional hearings, debates, and media coverage to conduct a frame analysis and map the arguments, themes, and stories used to convince decision-makers to build the vessel. While state competition became the central frame used by American nuclear icebreaker proponents, national security, science and technology, an uncertain future, and technical details about the existing fleet’s decline were also popular narratives. Although the push for a nuclear icebreaker enjoyed popular bi-partisan and bi-cameral support in Congress, it failed to convince a budget-conscious Eisenhower administration. De 1957 à 1961, les membres du Congrès se sont efforcés d’obtenir l’autorisation de la Garde côtière américaine de construire un brise-glace à propulsion nucléaire. À l’aide d’audiences du Congrès, de débats et de reportages dans les médias, cet article effectue une analyse de cadre et recense les arguments, les thèmes et les récits qui ont servi à convaincre les décideurs de construire le navire. Alors que les partisans américains des brise-glaces nucléaires se sont principalement fiés à la concurrence entre états comme leur cadre principal, la sécurité nationale, la science et la technologie, un avenir incertain et des détails techniques concernant le déclin de la flotte existante étaient également des conceptions populaires. Bien que la pression en faveur d’un brise-glace nucléaire ait bénéficié d’un appui populaire bipartite et bicaméral au Congrès, elle n’a pas réussi à convaincre l’administration Eisenhower soucieuse de son budget.

The symbolic uses of platforms: The politics of platform governance in the United States

Unlike many other countries around the world, the United States has taken relatively little substantive action in the realm of platform governance, despite the United States being directly impacted by occurrences such as Russian interference in the 2016 election, domestic disinformation related to the 2020 election, the Cambridge Analytica data breach scandal and the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation that has accompanied the Coronavirus pandemic. Yet the past four years have involved numerous Congressional hearings on various aspects of platform governance and a multitude of bills have been introduced addressing a similarly wide range of platform governance issues. With so many indicators of potential government action over the past half-decade, but so few actual policy interventions, platform governance appears to be a prime example of a policy-making context in which symbolic actions are taking precedence over substantive actions. This article illustrates this dynamic through an analysis of recent platform governance developments in the United States.

The ASCAP-BMI Feud, Status Panic, and the Struggle for Cold War Consensus

By the 1950s, ASCAP and its associated songwriters and composers seemed out of touch with contemporary musical tastes and industry trends. With the introduction of competition in the form of BMI in 1939, many members of ASCAP were experiencing a sense of status anxiety, an anxiety exacerbated by the many cultural, social, political, and economic changes that swept across postwar US society. Rather than adapt to the changing musical landscape of the 1950s, some members argued that ASCAP's fading cultural prestige and diminished influence within the music industry were the result of a conspiracy perpetrated by the broadcast networks and BMI. This article examines how, in an attempt to reassert the status and prestige they had enjoyed before the war, ASCAP and its supporters exploited contemporary Cold War anxieties as part of their ongoing feud with BMI. In congressional hearings from 1956 and 1958, individuals and organizations sympathetic to ASCAP portrayed BMI as part of a coordinated conspiracy that not only threatened free market practices through the establishment of an alleged “electronic curtain,” but also sought to foist an inferior product on audiences who were being manipulated by “hidden persuaders.” I suggest that the rhetoric that dominated both of these hearings reflects ideological debates that were being fought at the height of the Cold War, debates involving the culture of consensus and the image of the “American Way.”

Making Watergate “Look Like Child’s Play”: The Solyndra Discourse (2011–2012) as Flak

In analyzing the distinction between flak and scandal, this investigation focuses on the discourse around Solyndra in 2011–2012 on two media platforms. Solyndra was a solar panel firm that went bankrupt after receiving American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (‘The Stimulus’) funds. The analysis shows that <em>National Review</em>—a rightwing journal of opinion that increasingly operates as an online platform—unswervingly utilized the Solyndra bankruptcy as an instrument of political combat. Following flak lines rehearsed by Republicans in congressional hearings, <em>National Review</em> narrated Solyndra as scandalous evidence of the Obama administration’s putative ineptitude and/or criminality that, moreover, discredited the efficacy of green energy. The performance of the mainstream newspaper <em>The Washington Post </em>presented a grab-bag mix as its objective methods insinuated flak packaged as scandal into stories when they followed Republican talking points. At the same time, <em>The Washington Post</em>’s discourse noted that no evidence of administration corruption was discovered despite extensive investigation and that government intervention into the economy is often highly beneficial.

Theorizing Political Responsiveness in Prosecutorial Decision-Making

This chapter details our theory for why we should expect the priorities and preferences of the president, Congress, and a U.S. Attorney’s local public to affect prosecutorial behavior. We argue that principal-agency theory provides a useful tool to understand how political principals like the president and Congress can influence U.S. Attorney decision-making. We expect that presidential rhetoric and congressional hearings on crime-fighting priorities will provide important, meaningful signals regarding these principals’ priorities and that federal prosecutors will adjust their behavior depending on the strength of the signals they have received from their principals. Additionally, we anticipate that U.S. Attorneys will be mindful of their local public’s preferences because they are often drawn from the district in which they serve and will continue to work in the district when their tenure ends. We also introduce the empirical measures used to capture political superiors’ communication to federal prosecutors that we rely on in the remainder of the book.

The Military Child Care Act of 1989

The Department of Defense (DoD) operates the largest employer-sponsored child care in the nation. For Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and more, the Military Child Care Act (MCCA) of 1989 was enacted to establish law-mandated standards for all branches. Providing high-quality, available child care to service members helps maintain a mission ready force. Before the passing of the MCCA, the services’ child care programs were tainted with poor oversight, deplorable conditions and child abuse scandals detailed in GAO reports and congressional hearings. Investigations and legislative activity leading up to the passing of the MCCA, which became law under the National Defense Authorization Act of 1990 and 1991, forced the DoD to take responsibility for a new breed of service members—the military family.As a military spouse with children and employee of the DoD who co-supervises a child development center (CDC), I understand the importance of the MCCA and am able to witness DoD’s investment in their military families. The history of abhorrent conditions has all but vanished, due in part to public access of government publications. The timeline of this legislation in combination with nongovernment publications helps tell the story of the how the military model of child care became one in which the civilian sector strives to accomplish. My decade long career of federal service, my desire to be more knowledgeable of the original MCCA and my interest in military history inspired my research. My intended audience are those unfamiliar to military child care and those who may not understand the needs and sacrifices of our nation’s military families.