Blog Feed

Create a Post

Enemy of the State Response

Posted by Manna-Symone Middlebrooks on
In this film, the government was portrayed as a hasty and invasive body. The film begins with the murder of a congressman who, for a valid reason, refuses to side with the passing of a bill that will allow for more the surveillance of American citizens. The murder is staged to look like a suicide and this becomes the first level of secrecy in the movie. The main character, Bobby, unknowingly gets a hold of the video recording of the murder and is then hunted throughout the rest of the movie for information that he does not even discover until nearly the end of the movie. 

Personally, I believe that the government should be able to have access to our private information when there is a just reason for doing so. In the film there was no threat to national security or crime committed that warranted the invasion of Bobby's privacy. The scene where Bobby's house was bugged with wires, but is left looking like a robbery best captures the image of a direct invasion of privacy.  The man can't even go into his own house without having his every move monitored. At what point is the line drawn and the powers of the government and NSA limited? However, I did find it interesting when Bobby and Lyle were able to bug  the hotel room of another government official using the same technology as the NSA. When  Reynolds explains to the NSA team that their mission was only a practice added to the layers of lies and secrecy in the movie. The entire mission Jack Black's character and the rest of the tech people are under the impression that this is just routine, brings into question how much the NSA and government can manipulate their own staff, and citizens. 

U.S.A P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act Response

Posted by Manna-Symone Middlebrooks on
 After completing the reading, I believe that there is still a need for the U.S.A P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act to still exist but the need is not as great as it was after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There was little debate about the need for such and act however, the rapid development and little amendment limit the need for the Act in its current form. 

With developments in communication  technology it is becoming more difficult to track down certain individuals. The threat of terror will always exist and in order to keep Americans safe it may become necessary to investigate  "law abiding" citizens. However, this should not occur without having to first go through a judge to do so. If a judge is not reviewing the orders for the search then they can be considered as unjust and/or unconstitutional. 

Nevertheless, instances will occur where the need to collect information can not wait for the approval of a judge and must be rushed. In these instances review by a judge is still necessary during the investigation. Take for example this scenario, the the intention of an investigation is to find information on terrorists and instead information is gathered about maybe on a drug cartel Is the purpose of the Act being fulfilled? No, it is being used for an unrelated issue.Yes, there is a goal being accomplished, but it is not what the Act was intended for.