Recent Posts

Postings by date

March 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

Categories

Recent Comments

Meta

I share Dan Froomkin’s great article in full:

James Bond is doomed. But his undoing will not come from the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion, or Ernst Stavro Blofeld, or a jilted Bond girl.

Bond is doomed because early in the movie Spectre, the otherwise benevolent Q, muttering something about nanotechnology and microchips, injects him with “smart blood.”

“Smart blood,” Q tells us, allows MI6 to track Bond absolutely anywhere he goes in the entire world. Presumably it turns his circulatory system into a radio, battery, and powerful antenna all in one, and is irreversible. For Bond, constantly broadcasting his location makes it virtually impossible to sneak around.

Sure, in Spectre, he manages to slip off the grid temporarily — thanks to Q’s plot-friendly indulgence. But long term? Even assuming that only MI6 can lock onto his bloody beacon and that MI6 can’t be hacked, his bosses will still always know where he is. And trusting in the security of government computer systems, as the movie demonstrates, is probably not a good idea.

There is no such thing as “smart blood,” of course. But it’s a pretty good metaphor for those omnipresent tracking devices that, in real life, have become a de facto extension of our bodies: our phones.

Most of us have no choice any longer but to carry mobile phones, even though they rob us of our locational privacy. For Bond, his very blood now robs him of his M.O. Smart blood equals geospatial emasculation.

And there’s another way that Spectre makes a valuable contribution to the typically staid public discourse about the surveillance state.

The standard inside-the-Beltway arguments about surveillance assume there’s a tradeoff between national security and privacy. But Spectre emphatically asserts that you can do more harm with total information than you can good.

Knowing everything about everyone is actually of limited use to the good guys. But it’s hugely useful to the bad guys — be they extortionists, terrorists, or power-mad bureaucrats. And if it’s collected, somewhere, be assured the bad guys can get their hands on it.

While Bond is pursuing his super-villain, his boss M wages a losing bureaucratic war with C, who’s more of an NSA/GCHQ type. M inevitably describes the massive surveillance network that C is building as “George Orwell’s worst nightmare.” In response, C literally laughs at M’s devotion to the quaint notion of “democracy.” Subtle it ain’t, but the central point — that ubiquitous surveillance is an inevitably totalitarian tool, not just inappropriate for democratic society, but actively inimical to it — is often underappreciated in the current debate.

The timing of the movie is extraordinarily propitious, especially in Britain, which is already much more of a surveillance state than the U.S. — with one surveillance camera for every 11 people. A draft Investigatory Powers Bill unveiled just last week would institutionalize profound invasions of privacy, from snooping on domestic web-browsing histories to bulk hacking.

Way back in 1998, science-fiction author David Brin published a influential non-fiction book called The Transparent Society in which he argues that limiting the collection of information is futile, and that therefore the only solution is to share the powers of surveillance with the citizenry — enabling the public to watch the government as well as the government watches the public. It’s a nice idea, but so unrealistic that Spectre’s more dystopian vision actually seems more plausible.

What if mass surveillance by an ostensibly beneficent national government really means that whatever the government collects is de facto transparent to SPECTRE, SMERSH, Kaos, the mob, the cartels, Carlos the Jackal, ISIS, and Vladimir Putin?

M is an imperfect messenger, calling as he does for a return to the traditional core value of assassination mano a mano — but he makes a powerful argument, on purely pragmatic terms: “All the surveillance in the world can’t tell you what to do next.”

The movie also shows us what kind of hero we need to prevent such a dystopian future — and it isn’t Bond. It’s Q, who bears a striking resemblance to Edward Snowden.

Sure, Q starts off by forever damning Bond to life as a radio antenna on a virtual tether, but he turns out to be a geek with an unshakeable moral center. With his heavily be-stickered laptop, he transforms in Spectre from outfitter of nifty death machines to white-hat hacker, singlehandedly bringing down a surveillance network that threatens the free world.

End of quote.

I agree with Dan on the scope of our phones to track us wherever we go. I would also remind you of the recent article I referred to which showed about 1/3rd of Americans already have an implanted RFID chip, unbeknownst to them, and most likely correlated with recent dental work.

And there is an assumption in Dan’s article that there are some good guys who might be using this tracking information for good and honest purposes. It is difficult to know who they might be, beyond the fiction that the NSA or GCHQ have some interest in your protection from terrorists or others. I say fiction because you have to continue to believe that terrorists controlled by Osama bin Laden flew planes into the WTC towers on 9/11 to buy that story, when anyone who has done their homework knows this is simply nonsense, and that bin Laden was a long term CIA asset who died at the end of 2001. But it still challenges most people to even contemplate this truth.

And this is just the surface layer. When you realise that the Zionists have controlled the United States since at least 1913, Russia since 1917 and Britain since at least the Battle of Waterloo, you realise there are no good guys, and all of these systems are about the complete monitoring of every individual on the planet. It was one of the reasons for the execution of the 9/11 false flag – to set up the myth of the endless war on terrorism and justify total surveillance, ostensibly for our protection. Without this Hegelian excuse, we would not accept it.

But I have always enjoyed the Bond romps (though their recent increased violence challenges me) and how movies are used to telegraph the plans of the elite, so I look forward to watching Spectre when the opportunity arises.

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next Post

Eisenhower's Rhine-Meadows Death Camps

Mon Nov 9 , 2015
I’ll let this horrific and damning documentary speak for itself. It quotes extensively from those who were present and survived. Once more, not the story […]
WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
RSS
Follow by Email