Science Leadership Academy Learn · Create · Lead

Blog Feed

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

This movie pretty much puts the government in a bad way. Or at least a team of rogue NSA agents. They could do just about anything they wanted or get anything they wanted. Their SSN, finical records, credit cards, address etc, seemed to be easy access with out needing a warrant. There is no privacy for citizens in this movie, or respect for it because if these people want to do it they can. The government shouldn't have this so easy access to all this information, there should be some balance to their power. There is some law maker that is trying to get this bill passed, and the scary thing is its recent. Privacies should be respected until suspicious circumstances. Just like warrants to search your house, etc, they don't have that for a lot of things online.

Be the first to comment

Enemy of the State Reflection

​In Enemy of the state i believe the government is portrayed as a persistent group of people. I also think they can are being portrayed as secretly bad in a way. I say this because throughout the whole movie they are chasing Will Smith to try and get what he has. They also wouldn't have a problem with killing him either. They also portray them to be an all knowing source. What I mean by that is in the movie the government knows everything that goes on anywhere in the U.S. and they are allowed to tap people's clothes, shoes, phones etc... which most people see as a serious invasion of privacy. In the movie it seems that the government really could care less about an average citizens "privacy" because as i just said they tap peoples phone, record their actions, listen in on everything that goes on in their everyday life etc... In this movie i see it as the government has no respect for peoples so called privacy. It's like they're always secretly in our business. If this is a free country as it is portrayed to be then i feel that the government should only have legal access to things that the people know the government has access to. I don't think they should be able to hear everyone's conversations or be able to follow their every move, but I also understand that the things that they do could be necessary in order to keep our country safe and free. I really don't feel like individual freedoms should be violated by any means because as citizens of America we have the right to privacy, but I think that can and most likely will be violated if the government feels that there is a legitimate threat against our great country. I believe that if what happened in the movie actually occurred in real life that government would actually handle matters in the same type of way though. I believe that there is a lot of secrecy that goes on in our government, but the average American citizen could care less unless it effects them in any way. That is why on average less than half of America votes every four years, and 68% was such a shocking number of people voting in 2008.
Be the first to comment
Edit Delete

Enemy of the State review.

Well, the movie starts off very dramatic, setting the scene and mood with music and sudden killing. That alone establishes the government as crooked and twisted. So, just because of that I tried to think in an unbiased way and even tried to defend the actions of the government. I wanted to think in the terms that they truly set the Patriot Act for the protection and security of the American people however, I really couldn't ... good director skills. In the movie they didn't particularly cover how they handled the citizens' privacy because they only showed the extremes that one man and his team would go to cover up their own secret. I think, however, that it  clearly showed the lack of surveillance that they themselves get considering the many people they watch. I think, despite the overall movie, that the amount of access that they have is effective, they did after all locate their target, but based off of the movie there should be a more secure system of checks and balances within the agency that helps with keeping their tools for appropriate uses. Of course, appropriate referring to their keywords i.e terrorist,bomb,president as they mention in the movie. There has to be at least half of the evidence that one would need to convict someone in order to bug and surveillance to such extremes. I think there is a definitive line between using the act for personal and criminal purposes rather than for national security and that is where our freedoms end and injustice begins. 
Be the first to comment

AmerGovt,EnemeyState,BlogPost1

​Normally when I think of the government, I'm reminded of order and law.  Order is peace, and laws keep things in check.  Growing up, I have heard conspiracy theories and why people should never trust the government, but for the most part I've never seen or experienced any of these things in real life.  Coming into the movie, I already expected somethings to be exaggerated for the sake of keeping things interesting and moving at a good pace. In the opening of the movie, the government is painted in a much darker way than it is usually portrayed. It makes me feel as though the government can't be trusted with the better interest of it's people because of corruption. I thought it was interesting that there were government agents watching Will smith, and one of the mob members from the floor of an adjacent building. This could be a little annoying after a while, but it doesn't violate the rights of anyone, considering they are in public, and not making physical contact. The (NSA?) took it too far , however, when they decided to break into Will smiths home, and plant hidden cameras. Another thing I thought was both amazing and unnerving, was how easily and quickly they gained access to his financial reports, full name, adress, social security information, and the people he contacted. Seeing as how they government keeps track of this information anyway, I think its still wrong to go in and grab this information at the loose chance that there may be a connection. I think it would be acceptable for an individuals freedoms to be restricted, when they have known connections to terrorist acts, organizations, or have been convicted of more serious crimes. On the same hand, its kind of tough to combat violent attacks in today's world, considering the fact that people can decide to plan there own terrorist attacks after being persuaded to do so by actual terrorist organizations, or for no apparent reason at all. There needs to be some type balance that keeps people safe, without taking away their rights to privacy.
Be the first to comment
Edit Delete

Room for Debate

The purpose of the Patriot Act was to prevent terrorism. And while this law does help prevent terrorism, there are parts of it that breach my rights as an American citizen. The truth is, this law is a necessity for the United States, but if it's going to infringe upon the rights of the citizens its meant to protect, then it must be refined, regulated, and then represented to congress.

In order to have security, while maintaing liberty, we first need to get rid of complete titles in the Patriot Act, such as Title V. Title V is mainly the use of NSL's (National Security Letters). NSL's stipulate the release of information and other documents that has even the most remote thing to do with persons under investigations. But this does not only apply to terrorists, it can also be used against U.S. citizens. These letters can also implement gag orders, that can prevent people from speaking about this. Another Title that can be removed is Title X. Title X is full of unnecessary, miscellaneous provisions that can be removed without having any negative effect on the law as a whole. 

Furthermore certain titles while overall good, still have parts to them that infringe upon our rights. Title I is one of said titles. Title I is in the law to protect civil liberties, but it also allows the president to seize any foreign persons (including foreign citizens)  assets if said person is suspected to be (with or without evidence) involved in a terror plot, or has conspired to harm the United State. This is all done in secret without said persons knowledge until said seizure has begun, or has happened. Also Title II which involves wire taps and such, it also has delayed notification warrants. Delayed notification warrants, allow law enforcement to search a persons how with out them being notified until after the search is complete. This goes for terrorists as well as United States citizens as well, therefore both should be taken out of the Patriot Act.

I do believe that this law is very much needed, terrorism is still a threat and needs to be prevented as soon as possible, that don't infract citizens rights. And with these changes, the law that was meant to help protect us from terrorist will do just that, with out violating any United States citizens rights.
Be the first to comment

Enemy Of The State

I had never watched the movie enemy of the state so I was a little confused at the in certain parts but overaal I think it was a good movie. I think the opening scene where the guy is killed was a good way to open up the movie and gain my interest. I liked the whole way that the guy with the video was some way tied with Will Smith because of georgetown. I think overall my favorite scene was the one when the agents are trying to get a hold of the tape containing the evidence that would basically end him. The different shots and stuff really made the scene. I think that this takes it back to the control the government has. Im not sure if it all works how it was shown in the movie but its kind of weird to know that a few clicks and knowing a few things about one person can open up so much more. Jack Black was able to find a whole lot of information about Will Smith just using the business card that the agents found. Maybe at times this making all this information so easy to get will be helpful but what if at times government officials are just able to use them to their advantage just like in the movie? 
Be the first to comment

Enemy of the State- Journal

I have seen this movie before, as I was watching it I was remembering the parts. The first time I watched the movie I did not know the back story or any information on it besides what was in the movie.

The government is portrayed as a bunch of corrupt guy who can kill/do what they want and get away with it. The government is portrayed as superior to the other people who live in Americans. When they are chasing the photographer they were using government equipment for basically person use of covering something up.

When the scene when they find out the  nature photographer has the video and without any paperwork or other authorization they launched and "investigating" on this guy to find him and the tape. They put a phone tap on his phone, they are already have the ability to "spy" on Americans without even the bill being past. I feel someone's privacy is not respected, and they have the power of exactly how much privacy we really do have. Basically shows they can and will do what ever they want. During the whole movie they were accessing different cameras from the hotels and streets, they can stalk you and know your every move, that is not okay.

I understand that they need to have the ability to do that incase an attack but there should never be a time when they use it for things like this. There should really strict regulations on who and when they can use these things. I don't really know what exactly they consider terroristic acts such as when you said in class would an ex-military guy who goes to a base and shoots it up. Would that be a terroristic act or a guy being angry against his country men. The definition of a terrorist attack would have to be very specific. I think if they think someone is plotting an attack they would have to decide whether it is a terroristic attack or just an attack. I think if it is a life or death situation you can read my texts but this should never be able to fall into the wrongs hands to be abused!

Also when they said they wired tap phones and if certain words came up such as Allah they would be analyzed. I strongly believe there should never be a time where because of your religion be pinned for being in affiliation with terrorist. The just gets me angry!

"I blew up the building" "Why?" "You made a phone call!!"(Fav part)

Be the first to comment

Enemy of the State Respone

This film really freaked me out for the most part. On it's face there is a lot of action and there's Will Smith, but the implications of what was portrayed in the movie kept me up last night. I have dreams where I can't escape from someone chasing me and this was the epitome of it.

The government basically can do what they please. Listen to calls, check. Videotape everything, check. Kill people and (try to) cover it up, check. Pretty much wreak havoc to get the intended target, check. They are ruthless and perverse.

Individual privacy is not respected whatsoever. There is not a rock unturned, because they all have wiretaps under them now. I especially liked the part when Dean and the real Brill put the camera and taps in the politicians home/office. It really brought it home that privacy is non-existent and not just by means of the government. These non-government people are able to take advantage of the videotaping to use as incriminating blackmail. 

I understand the dramatizations in the movie, but what concerned me most was the lack of procedure. When Reynolds gave the order, someone was going down. There as no question of authority let alone necessity. They were willing to go to any means necessary to dispose of the tape. 

I'm conflicted as to whether anyone should have their privacy restricted. There is such a thin line between doing this to a few suspected people versus anyone and everyone. The problem with letting this happen would be that in order to cut down on corruption and bad judgement a lot of people would have to be involved in this. The more people know they less of a "secret undercover" operation it would be maybe making it less effective.

Who would have the ultimate authority to choose who gets followed and who does not? I don't believe any one person should have that God-like power. 
Be the first to comment

Enemy of the State- Journal

I have seen this movie before, as I was watching it I was remembering the parts. The first time I watched the movie I did not know the back story or any information on it besides what was in the movie.

The government is portrayed as a bunch of corrupt guy who can kill/do what they want and get away with it. The government is portrayed as superior to the other people who live in Americans. When they are chasing the photographer they were using government equipment for basically person use of covering something up.

When the scene when they find out the  nature photographer has the video and without any paperwork or other authorization they launched and "investigating" on this guy to find him and the tape. They put a phone tap on his phone, they are already have the ability to "spy" on Americans without even the bill being past. I feel someone's privacy is not respected, and they have the power of exactly how much privacy we really do have. Basically shows they can and will do what ever they want. During the whole movie they were accessing different cameras from the hotels and streets, they can stalk you and know your every move, that is not okay.

I understand that they need to have the ability to do that incase an attack but there should never be a time when they use it for things like this. There should really strict regulations on who and when they can use these things. I don't really know what exactly they consider terroristic acts such as when you said in class would an ex-military guy who goes to a base and shoots it up. Would that be a terroristic act or a guy being angry against his country men. The definition of a terrorist attack would have to be very specific. I think if they think someone is plotting an attack they would have to decide whether it is a terroristic attack or just an attack. I think if it is a life or death situation you can read my texts but this should never be able to fall into the wrongs hands to be abused!

Also when they said they wired tap phones and if certain words came up such as Allah they would be analyzed. I strongly believe there should never be a time where because of your religion be pinned for being in affiliation with terrorist. The just gets me angry!

"I blew up the building" "Why?" "You made a phone call!!"(Fav part)

Be the first to comment

Imani's Idea on Enemy of the State

​Enemy of the State basically is a movie that shows the corruption behind the well trusted government and the extremes they go through when they feel like they are threatened. The part of government that stars in the movie is the NSA (National Security Agency.) Every move the NSA made had was unjust and completely obliterated the idea of privacy and freedom an American citizen is supposed to have. The scene that really stuck out to me was when the NSA sent two men to go and break into Robert’s house, without a warrant, and totally trashed the house, along with bugging his wardrobe and house. If I remember correctly, any government agent needs to have a warrant of the property before entering which Robert did state when they first politely entered the house, but the NSA totally ignored that rule and broke in. That scene really made me see the carelessness of the NSA. They were given a job and were ruthless with their actions which tested the line of their authority. 


Honestly, I can't fathom the idea of the government really working like this and directing their attention to smaller issues that was created by their own sloppiness. I have no problem with the government trying to seriously protect their country and their people in their organizations but harassing a citizen without evidence is completely out of line. If you look back at the film remember that the NSA really did have no idea if Robert had the device/video on him. But they continued to harass him although they had no idea if he had the video or not. 


This movie brought me back to what we learned about the PATRIOT act. At first I was all for the law but then after learning about it during class, then watching this movie I feel like America is slowly turning into a country under the influence of a dictator. Almost like how China's government is, who basically monitors everything their citizens do. I don't want to live in a country where I can't live the way I want with the government OR the people around thinking there's a double meaning to my actions. I do understand that it is vital that people with suspicious actions should be monitored but only if there is more than an accusation and more evidence. There is a fine line between crossing an American citizens rights and keeping the country safe, and that line has been crossed when they passed the PATRIOT act.
Be the first to comment

Enemy of the State - Response

The first thing I want to say is that the movie was pretty good. Sure it had a few minor flaws that I couldn't help but notice, but it did a great job portraying the effects of surveillance technology that the NSA has put in place for us. And to top it all of, the movie was scary to say the least. 

I already knew about how the government already has the technology and power to keep tabs on whoever they feel needed to be monitored. But actually seeing how they operate is scary. Michael Westen (Burn Notice) definitely makes it look easy. I can't help but feel a little more paranoid than I was before watching the movie. The way that the people that you are suppose to trust and depend on will break in your house and turn against you in the slightest moment is ridiculous. The one question that lingered in my mind throughout the entire movie was: How much freedom are we willing to give up in the name of safety? It reminded me of prison in a sense where everyone is monitored, whether you like it or not. 

In the film, they focused more on the bad egg of the government. It really brought home the idea that in the wrong hands, the surveillance technology available can be used against us. And in a way, it seems that the film is saying that anyone in the government has the ability to cause harm with said surveillance technology. I understand the concept of safety (especially national saftey), but how much is too much? There should be a limit on how much access of information someone has on you. Because if not, do we actually have "freedom?" 
Be the first to comment

USA Patriot Act

First off, let me just say, I don't mind the government protecting their country. That is one awesome thing, but I don't think that it's right for them to invade in a innocent citizen or permanent resident. I'm not a considered a citizen, but I am a permanent resident and I'm already going through a lot with the United State alone, so imagine someone else. What if I was from Afghanistan or something, would they accuse me of being a terrorist right off the bat? Probably would. That's what you call discrimination. I don't think the voting members really thought about anything when the bill came across. They were just doing this because the attack was very hurtful. Yeah, they thought about their country, but they didn't think about other innocent souls from the third world. 

The main purpose of this act was for the government to spy on American, which in this case is used through technology. In this link, it talked about how most Americans thinks that is this bill is about catching the predator, but in reality, it's about them. I think that the Patriot Act is good for criminals and ACTUAL terrorists, but if they're using their "tools" on innocent people, then I don't agree. When I was watching the Enemy of The State, the government were using their special "tools" for their own personal reasonings, not for their country. I guess, I could just say that the government should be more fair. Don't get me wrong, safety is very important to every human being, but then again, no one is ever safe everyday of their life. Why does the government always want to have control and more power? I think everyone is equal, except the president. He has more power of making a change and moving us forward. If it wasn't for power and control, would we be in the position that we are in now? Shouldn't us citizen have the rights to say yes or no to invading our privacy? Are they really protecting us or harming us in a certain way? I think it's best for me to say that I agree and disagree with the Patriot Act. 

Be the first to comment

MPyfrom- Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

After watching Enemy of the State, I must admit I am a scared of what the government is actually capable of.  In the movie the government had absolutely all the power in regards to its citizens. The people had no privacy in their home, work, and etc. If there was a top secret government issue anything would be done to handle it without a disturbance. When the NSA officials raided actor, Will Smith's home they had no consideration for him or his family. Clearly, they can care less as to who gets hurt in the process of solving the problem. They killed innocent people and along with disturbing the peaceful environment. I believe if Will Smith would have gave them the tape in the beginning they would have still most likely killed him anyway. As innocent as he was, it didn't matter to National Security. They wouldn't have trusted his word anyway. 

Personally, I think how the government invaded the people's privacy was unnecessary. I believe their should be a balance but to an extent. Similar to crime shows, they hack your phone records, cross referencing people, and bank statement. I think that is okay but when you go beyond those boundaries it becomes a problem. I rather the government see who I've been talking to versus them tapping into my phone call. I find that to be so drastic. We as citizens should have the right to live privately. 

Now if someone is seen as threatening its hard to say what the right thing to do is. Do you invade their privacy to get answers or do you respect it?  That is a very difficult question. I have no idea how to answer it. Part of me is saying check them! Then other part is saying but what happen to respecting ones' privacy? I don't exactly now what I would do to even handle that situation because its such a contradiction. We want to catch the bad guys but we also want to respect our people. I learned that you can please everyone so we have to compromise somehow. 

Be the first to comment

RoughCut Sept,11 Blogpost1

​I decided to write about the video of the mother losing her son.  The film made me feel some what sad.  It was upsetting to see how muslims were treated after 9/11.  It was sad to know that most of them were seen as terrorist, even with those whom they had a relatively good relationship with, before the tragedy, an example of that would be the neighbor.  Before 9/11 the mother and and the neighbor were on a speaking basis where they'd say "Hi" and "Bye" and wave at each other, but after 9/11, when the news was suspecting her son as a terrorist, the neighbor no longer spoke, and treated her as if they had never even met each other.  The way the director made it obvious that the neighbor no longer wanted to associate with the mother, made it much more dramatic and you truly felt the pain, of the mother, because when the neighbor ignored the mother, you noticed in the background, that the other neighbors were on their stoop just staring at the mother and watching the man look her off.

Be the first to comment

Enemy of the State-NGiello

​As I watched the movie I notice that the government was made out to be these sneaky, manipulative, and nefarious. They had no regard for citizens, and were a bit homicidal. I mean lets do a body count they killed, Rachel Banks, Lenny (guy in the book store), Congressman Phil Hammersley, 3-5 mobsters, and arguably Daniel Zavits, and all this in only a few days. It would seem that they have no regard for the laws and rights that they swore to protect. But even all that isn't as bad as the wires, and bugs.

The way they broke into Dean's house was ridiculous, and bugged it was not ok, fire alarm, cloths, phones, they made it so that there was no privacy. Also the way they would use the satellites really sketched me out. For all I know they could be doing that to me right now, how would I know? I wouldn't, and thats what makes this so imoral, citizens have the right to know when they are being watched, nobody should ever feel like they need to be anyone but them selfs because they can be arrested for it.


I don't really agree with wire taps, and all that, but I understand why its done. So if they government feels that its essential to tap some phones to protect us from LEGITIMATE terror attacks the ok, but do not tap my phone because I said "bomb", or "I gonna kill the president", I mean I said that all the time while G.W. Bush was in office, along with most people I know. And I mean I feel as though I provide the government with enough of my personal information, and if they want more they should arrest me for some illegal act I committed, they shouldn't just wire tap my house. I feel like there should be a checks and balances system when tapping peoples homes, cloths, cars, etc. 
Be the first to comment

Cecelia Baez, Enemy of the State Response

Cecelia Baez, Enemy of the State Response


OH MY GOLLY. Let me say, that movie was good. Aside from that it EXTREMELY changed my perspective to what I believed about the privacy I claim. At first, there wasn't much refusal with allowing the government to look through my life. It doesn't bother me, I have nothing to hide. But that movie only led me to go against ONE thing.. even the ones who are watching us, may need someone to watch them. And them someone to watch them, and someone to watch them. I found it funny, how, someone from the government could cut off surveillance from themselves, but we can't. People who have the power in stalking other people, can use it to their advantage. And that's something horrible. I'd rather have a terrorist attack, then have someone extremely important INSIDE the government, turn against and betray their own country. Because with that power, they could up with a more devious and deadly plan than someone outside the country. So it scares me. We can't monitor everyone in the world. Especially the people who are doing the monitoring. Privacy is respected and not respected no matter where we go or what country we are in. That has been the case for years with abiding the law and giving us freedom. As long as I am allowed to continue to fulfill my dreams, I could care less about anything privacy that the government finds out about me. They can't ruin my life over possible illegally downloading a book. IN all honesty, I feel they have more important things with "terrorism" to do, than with me. Unless I'm guilty, than I don't care. But I do care about how you truly can't trust anyone. I find it hilarious.. well deviating that ONE powerful man could severely ruin the life of an ordinary man because of a video. He could take advantage of his power and kill the innocent because he can. and he could hide it without anyone knowing it was him. Honestly, thats horrible. &Even though it's a movie.. I'm more than sure that something like that could have happened. It makes me scared.. it makes me freaked. That if I mistakenly had something important, but didn't know about it, they could ruin my life. For their own greed? I say either take extreme charge over who is IN charge, or just find another way to help the country with danger. But it truly scares me, thinking my government is more of a threat to me than the real killers in the world. 

Be the first to comment
Edit Delete

RoughCut, Sept11, BlogPost1

​I decided to write about the video of the mother losing her son.  The film made me feel some what sad.  It was upsetting to see how muslims were treated after 9/11.  It was sad to know that most of them were seen as terrorist, even with those whom they had a relatively good relationship with, before the tragedy, an example of that would be the neighbor.  Before 9/11 the mother and and the neighbor were on a speaking basis where they'd say "Hi" and "Bye" and wave at each other, but after 9/11, when the news was suspecting her son as a terrorist, the neighbor no longer spoke, and treated her as if they had never even met each other.  The way the director made it obvious that the neighbor no longer wanted to associate with the mother, made it much more dramatic and you truly felt the pain, of the mother, because when the neighbor ignored the mother, you noticed in the background, that the other neighbors were on their stoop just staring at the mother and watching the man look her off.
Be the first to comment

Cecelia Baez, Short Video Response

Cecelia Baez, Short Video Response


My absolute favorite  video that was viewed during class would have had to be the old man and his blockage towards reality. At first glance of the film, I began to think that his wife died during 9/11 and that his whole life he never knew what happened. Abe brought up that he realized it wasn't because of his wife dying, but the towers that fell in which helped him to see the light of reality. Aside from the sad love story of an old man, which touched my heart, I saw that the act of 9/11 opened the eyes of many individuals. It opened the eyes for truth, reality, and that doesn't mean for just terrorism schemes from other countries. I allowed people to value each others lives, and allowed people to actually LIVE, because you never know when something like that could happen again. It faced us with reality that we don't live in the best or worst country. That aside from our bubbles we are always in war being one… or the top country in the world. That there is more than the next party, or the next crush, but doing something with your life. That's what I felt towards it. I also believed that finally seeing the light, isn't always the high light of anyones day. Some individuals cannot take the truth. The old man wheeping for his love, that he finally realized was gone, it hurt. He could finally move on.. but it hurt. Some people are happier not knowing what happen. I take that example from the Children who were unable to grasp the true meaning of 9/11. I think of it.. would it really benefit them or hurt them to see how cruel or sad the world could be? Would I really want my children to know that terrible things could happen like that, or allow their innocent minds to learn things later in life. It;s touching.. and confusing :)

Be the first to comment

Short Films: Long Nu Nhan

Where do I even start? I guess I could say that I like all the videos but not all of them struck me in a certain way. But I can definitely say that each director used their brains very intellectually. To start off, I want to say that the video with the little kids was the most heart warming one because of the characters. I just want to point out that I think serious movies with little kids are more effective. The reason why is because it shows you that not only does the event affect us adults, but it also has a role in a 7 year's old mind and heart. When we first watched this video, no one knew what the children were saying so we started to use our visual techniques and tried to comprehend what was going on. When the children were putting mud into the bricks, I thought that they were just really poor and it was child labor. We can forget that the little girls were so cute and talkative. Not the point, but I thought that they were just talking about things that little kids do. Come to find out, I was totally wrong. The way the director used the children was so strong. When we were able to understand what the children were saying, it shocked me and made me giggle because all they were talking about throughout the entire movie was about someone dying. It was also a strong piece because they involve religion into the script. They were taught that God has a cycle. He creates the human beings, destroys them, and then makes again. I thought that was interesting because they're so used to people dying and whatnot. That's not how a kid's mind should be like. I think at this point, I didn't really care about the camera angles, I just cared about the script. And the script just took me to a whole different mindset.

I also like the video with the guy who was accused of being a terrorist because he's not a typical American and the way that the government treated him was not cool. I wasn't originally from America and I would be super pissed if the government did that to me. USA is known for their freedom, speech, and to bare arms. Where was his speech in this movie? They didn't even give him a chance to say anything. They just assumed that he was a terrorist because of his race and it just so happened that he was there during the attack. America was accusing him of something that he's not and created this big issue about him, and after 6 months, they want to act like nothing happened and call him a hero. I think that America should be less judgmental towards people because not everyone is a criminal. And ANYONE can be a hero. Just because you're white, it doesn't make you a hero. 

Be the first to comment

Blog Post 1:Enemy of the State -Lianna Jordan

Lianna Jordan

Public Enemy of the State Reflection

 

      Everything started with a video of a murder and fights for possession. This movie made me realize the importance of the government all together. I learned that not only congressman but people will do what ever it takes to make it through. An example from the movie is when Reynolds kills Hammersley because of his firm opposition for the passing of new legislation that would expand the power of intelligence. The movie was good and I learned that the people on the inside have a lot of power and are able to access a lot of powerful information, which again makes them powerful. They killed Roberts girlfriend and frames him for her murder.

Be the first to comment

Enemy of The State: Long Nu Nhan

I have watched this movie before, but I never really paid attention to concept of it and the meaning behind it. I just thought that Will Smith's character just has something that the "bad guys" wanted, which was the tape. For some reason, I just didn't think that those guys were part of the government. But now that I know about the bill and what was the point of the movie, it was a bit more interesting. For the past day or two, we've been talking about the 9/11 and how it affected us all individually. And I thought it was interesting that the congress man said "When buildings stop blowing up, people's priorities tends to change." It made me think about how people didn't really care much about the government and how our world is working, but once the 9/11 attack happened, it was like a slap in the face for everyone. I thought it was interesting how the director used all different types of cameras and cameras angles. Because of that, it put me in the position of knowing what it feel likes to be part of the government and knowing that our government is constantly watching us 24/7. There's not one angle that the camera cannot catch. "This little bitch is not going to be the final chapter of my life" says Reynold Brian. He's saying that he wants to use everything possible to get what he needs. But I mean, is he doing this because it's the right thing to do or is it because he doesn't want anyone to know what he did.


Here's the thing that got me really confused. I didn't understand why Reynold Brian killed the other white crusted man. Not only that, but if he's part of the government. Aren't you suppose to obey the laws and do the right thing? And the right thing is to not murder someone! I feel like he was so guilty with what he had done and it caused him to lose himself and his men. The rule is that if you kill someone, you go to jail. Since he's part of the government, I'm going to assume that he knows that rule. And since he's part of the government, he should know better. Anyways, I just don't think that he shouldn't promise to do the right thing for his people if he's doing criminal things. I'm all for the USA to defend their country and make it stronger, but if they're using that bill to invade in innocent people's privacy, I don't think that should be part of the bill. Everyone deserves to have their own privacy. It's their information and I don't think anyone should know but themselves or their family members. Also, invading someone's property is not cool either. You are not allow to invade someone's house if you don't have a warrant or if the resident is not home. That's their property, not yours. Let's just say, I'm not all for someone invading my privacy, but if you get my permission, then I really don't care.

Be the first to comment

Blog Pots 1: Enemy of the State

Watching the film made me concerned about the power that is held by the government and politicians. That power can be very dangerous because it can fall into the wrong hands, and be used by a person with their own agenda. The power of such surveillance methods can really be useful for monitoring and capturing criminals and terrorists, but the film portrayed how it could also be used to ruin an innocent persons life. If there is any lesson from the film it is that the surveillance technology should be monitored and restricted to trusted officials.   
Be the first to comment

Enemy of State- Maggie Long

This would be the first time I've ever watched this movie and within the first 20 minutes I can already tell that this movie will make me a bit mad. They are showing the government in the beginning as shady criminals who can kill whoever they want and make a cover for it without getting into any sort of trouble. They show the NSA as sort of like a "cleanup crew" when they first talk about getting the film that the guy had across the lake. They bring up tapping into phone liines also very easily. The guy in the desk at the NSA said he wanted wires on the man with the tape. Personally, I don't think it should be that easy to tap into someones personal life like that. They have no proof that he did anything wrong or that he is going to hurt someone. They also covered up the name to hide the fact that this is a hit. They are calling it a PY training op. 

In my opinion, it shouldn't be this easy to kill 2 men without any evidence (before they tapped his lines) of him doing anything wrong. Why weren't people questioning his death or Lenny's death? There were obviously 2 men after him and when he got hit by the firetruck they immediately patted him down searching for the copy of the tape. Did anyone realize this? It seemed like people thought it was normal to watch 2 men in black trench coats pat down a dead man in the street. 

"I want to use every means possible to get what we need" This quote is saying much more than it seems. It is 1. Saying that our privacy is completely disregarded and not taken seriously at all. And 2. That the government has so much power that they can do this and get away with it. This in my head is just wrong and needs to be fixed. The government should NOT have these kinds of powers without some kind of evidence to go off of. In the movie, they bugged pretty much everything he owns and made it look like a robbery. Just because the officials have more power than some other US citizens, doesnt mean they can take advantage of that and abuse their power. 




Be the first to comment
Edit Delete

Allen Yang - Enemy of the State

This wouldn't be the first time I've watched the movie and I can say the movie's amazing. It gives the audience a sense of awareness that they are not alone. They can be tracked and located almost wherever they are with the modern technologies we all carry with us on a day-to-day basis. And it shows you, part of what the government can do and the powers they possess to track an individual or his/her family down. 

The movie portrays the government agency, as a whole group of corrupts or at least the followers under the commands of the corrupt NSA leader. And as every other movie goes with their consequences, the individual they're tracking down and trying to rid out, becomes more and more clever with the help of a former NSA Agent. The longer they track them the consequences become bigger, as the agency begins to unfoil and exploit their dark matters. The dark projects they've been conducting and not showing to the public. 

Would I let the government spy on me? Of course not, spying is already a word that offends its victim or specified target. Clearly I wouldn't ever let it happen, but that would only be a reality if they weren't under my radar. The government possesses so much power, there's almost no way to know that maybe they have be boxed in and processing my personal informations with all the security clearance they have. 

I believe that the level of access can be what they have now, but none of them are to be revealed or released if the person's not an impending threat or imminent. Just like personal informations or room numbers are not permitted to strangers from hotel lobby employees. 
Be the first to comment

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

After watching the film a lot of my perspectives changed. I remember that when people said stuff like "Don't say that the government can hear you" I used to just think that they were just messing around or crazy but after watching this I'm starting to believe those people. Now I don't feel like they are watching/Listening to everybody 24/7 but now I do feel that if they really want to know what you are doing they can find out with no problem. In the film I feel that the government is portrayed as they will do whatever it takes to get what they want. I feel that the government should not have as much access to a humans personal info as they do but still a significant amount to know about you. As for when individual freedoms should be restricted for safety it is hard to say, because no matter how far you go its always a question whether or not a persons personal freedom is greater than the safety of a community. All in all right now I do feel the government has to much power. 
Be the first to comment