Blog Feed

Create a Post

Enemy of The State: Long Nu Nhan

Posted by Longnu Nhan in American Government - Herman on
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.

Blog Pots 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by William Potts in American Government - Herman on
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.   

Enemy of State- Maggie Long

Posted by Margaret Long in American Government - Herman on
​ 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. 




Allen Yang - Enemy of the State

Posted by Anonymous in American Government - Herman on
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. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Matthew Walker in American Government - Herman on
​ 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. 

Enemy Of State

Posted by Andrew Chalfen in American Government - Herman on
"Those guido mother fuckers"... This sentence does three things. First and foremost its an insult and a derogatory substitute for Italians. Second its a generalization that just because the men looked and seemed Italian that they were in fact "Guido Motherfuckers". Finally its an bias opinion that judges a group of people based on their appearance and actions.

This sentence was used in the second scene of the movie Enemy Of State when a man describes his beating. Now the part that I get caught up on is the generalization. All Italians aren't "guidos" just as all blacks aren't gangsters, all jews aren't rich, and all muslims aren't terrorists. However especially in America generalization occurs even more so then racism (speaking in modern day). These generalizations aren't just by the uneducated or ill-witted either many of our most powerful leaders have the same stereotypical mindset as the character who used the phrase I quoted above. 

Privacy is an important right that helps protect against stereotypes. Take away privacy and people will be judged on even their most intimate moments. 
Intimacy is not to be taken lightly but neither is violence. When muslim terrorists attacked the world trade center they burned an image of their religion being evil in the minds of the American people (with a little help from the Bush administration). The American governments response was to take away privacy to ensure that all citizens were constantly kept in some sort of check. However when you take away that privacy, you also take away all of the intimacy that goes along with it. Also taking away privacy leads to a constant judging and in the eyes of the wrong judge something as harmless as "eating to much bubba ganush (the daily show reference)" can be considered a red flag.


 The American government does not like red flags.... especially if you look anything like the people of the country who just bombed their big buildings. 



(Sorry I know I kinda left the topic of Enemy Of State but I feel like what I wrote needed to be said) 





Blog Post 1: Enemy of the state

Posted by Alysha Ortiz in American Government - Herman on
Im disgusted of the fact the government is tapping our phones. I understand certain things need to be done but theres a certain amount they got to do. The fact they search the guy house and put spy equipment in my point of view was over board. I feels although as a citizen we should have our privacy and rights. I believed that they went over board with the tracking down.

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Kimberly Cayamcela in American Government - Herman on
​I recall hearing my dad telling me that the government could hear my phone calls and see every move I make, but I didn't actually think that what he told me was fully true. Watching Enemy of the State, has made me realize how much more a government can be corrupt. Of course, this movie was a little exaggerated. Overall I will admit that it is crazy to think that the government can just come into my house and set up cameras to spy on me. The image that is given to the government in this film was very negative. To see investigators, who should be people the nation can trust walk around and make their own rules, I'd say is not a good thing. In the film, the privacy of our citizens is not respected one bit. Today, I believe that it is our responsibility to keep our lives private. Having Facebook, Kik, Instagram, etc. is our own decision and we decide to share to the world what we are up to at that exact second that we post up something on a social media network. With that said, I do believe that the government should have the right to have some sort of level of access with each individual's personal info. Not completely, but somewhat. You never know, someone who has been a good samaritan could be the new Al Qaeda. Though, it should be stressed to keep the safety of each citizens/community. But there should be boundaries. If the NSA has enough evidence of proving that you are a terrorist, the government should be capable of breaking the rules and hunt you down. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Michelle Torelli in American Government - Herman on
​This film truly made me think about the society that we live in now- full of fear. The government is capable of hiding things from the public from corrupted actions such as portrayed in the film. The government in the film is demonstrated as a no-good criminal in which can over power all civilians; no one is safe, especially when one tries to do something for the right of mankind. 

There must be restrictions on the people of the US, but that leaves so much room for corruption. This may sound controversial, but I personally believe the government should have access to all records of privacy but the access cannot be granted without evidence or complete urgency of the threat to the country. Citizens can sometimes pose a threat to the country rather than outsiders.

Enemy of the State- Trosario

Posted by Taina Rosario in American Government - Herman on
This was an amazing movie, with out our class I would have never know about it. 

Though out the movie I was completely interested. They painted the government as "trying to help" but though the eyes of a citizen who is targeted it seems that the government just didn't know when enough was enough. 

How pathetic is it that they had to use black mailing to cover up their own dirt. This is a reason to never do something you are ashamed of or ever will be. During the film it seemed like there was no end to how much information was or could be uncovered by the NSA. 

Brill spoke of machines that monitored words during a conversation, it seems like a better idea then humans listening in on our conversations but what would happen if I say some thing is "da bomb" technically that would be a monitored word. Would this mean that I would know be under surveillance. 

The government needs to be capable of finding 'terrorist' but that does not mean that American citizens should have to give put their freedom, especially with out permission asked. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Jordan McLaughlin in American Government - Herman on
I feel as if the government in this movie is portrayed on the extremely radical side of the spectrum, what makes me feel this way is that people in this movie don't know what is happening to and around them and the government is killing citizens. Which was a controversial topic when a terrorist who was a US citizen was killed and was big controversy, a guy in libia I want to say.
Individual Citizens privacy in this movie is not being respected and being used for purposes that are not condoned by the governments higher officials. Although I do believe that if this was used for the right situation and to curb terrorism then I think if your a terrorist you should be able to be tracked. Also I think they should track suspicious behavior. 
I think if you live in the states that they should have access they would need to find terrorist, so any possible documents that would link to a terrorist or help the government find terrorist should be viewable by the government. 
I believe if the government needs something to catch bad guys and protect our national security that they should be able to access whatever they need, so they aren't hassled by regulations and different things like can't listen to calls because of this, or can't use this because of that.

Blog post1: September 11th shorts

Posted by Dylan Cordivari in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
The film that touched me the most was the one directed by sean penn. The film caught my attention in the first minute just by showing the setting. I felt like i was in a sort of time machine seeing the way the older man's apartment was set up. He was older and a lot of the things in his house and even some of his mannerisms were very old fashioned which was interesting to see when it was related to something that had happened in a more modern time period. The film was able to grab my attention in many ways and make me really feel for the man with use of the music, camera angles, effects and dialogue. The dialogue i think is what got me most because the man's actions and speech were so dark to a point of almost insanity throughout the film and that really threw my emotions around. Sean penn has an amazing style of directing and it was shown very well through this piece. 

Blog Post 1- Enemy Of State

Posted by Mohamed Marzouk in American Government - Herman on
​ The Government is portrayed in a sinister way. Especially the NSA; they are shown to be ruthless with nothing other to complete their mission. In the beginning of the movie, there is a new legislation that is about to be passes. This could be a good or bad thing for the human population, so the agenda of the US Government might seem evil on the outside but to the American People's best interests at it's deep core.I feel like the Government can access too much about our lives too easily. I know, the Government can say it's a matter of National Security, but what is considered a "threat" anymore. The Government didn't respect anyone's privacy, it felt like what they were doing was to help their own cause. I feel like if the Government issued everything, they could look at it like they want to. In many schools, Teachers and other officials can look at a student's personal records whenever they want. If you are a felon or anyone who's trying to be above the law in anyway, I think the Government should be able to look up your personal information. But If they look up your information in order to save their own skin, then they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I think safety should be the number one concern for the US Government and if that takes lessening someone's freedom, then by all means, take it away. 

Blog Post 1 Enemy of the State

Posted by Chelsea Smith in American Government - Herman on
This was my first time watching this movie and from the first time seeing this I was amazed at just how much the government will try and get everything and anything they want. I feel as though the government has so much power that they abuse the power. If they need something instead of having a warrant they can parade a person's life with or without consent. 

With the citizens in this movie I think about how much Will Smith had to do just to try and stay safe. From the moment they broke into his house until the moment everyone was killed in the restaurant. When I think about how our privacy as a citizen is I think that we really don't have any privacy. Just from our technology the government was able to tap into Bobby's (Will Smith) life and find everything about him and more. Between his family, personal life, work, and any other aspect.After seeing this movie it made me think about how much the government does have on our lives and everything they can do. When I think about it our privacy really isn't private. I think that the government shouldn't be able to get such easy access to our lives. I feel as though it should remain our private life until the government needs reason to even try to dig into our life like that. Another point I want to make is how corrupt the government can be. All this running around that Bobby had to do in order to try and get his life back together is because of something the government did and was trying to remain hidden. So in that aspect the government is just as hard to be trusted with so many corrupt people in it. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Aja Wallace in American Government - Herman on
This movie seriously made me angry at times. First off the government knows too much information when it comes to peoples personal lives. In some cases, yes that can be of some use if they are trying to catch a murder but in the movie Will Smith was only trying to help people, not kill anybody. The technology that the government was using to to track people down was just way too much, if anybody for that matter has to go thew all of that watching and spying to keep something a secret. Then maybe it should not be done! Another thing I did not understand is the fact that Will Smith knew the type of people he was woking with and the type of people he was around would bring him some many types of trouble involving the government. The government looked like fools, all of that was uncalled for, if their mothers saw the way they were all acting they would all be in trouble. The government should just leave everyone alone! In my opinion if any one works with a certain level of “life threatening” situations then that person, in this case Will Smith should have a certain level of knowledge that has to do with the job and keeping ones self safe. Which did not happen so that annoyed me and the fact that the government “had” the right to cancel credit cards. Where’s the privacy? Wait, there’s no such thing, and that’s not okay. For that matter the world should just know everybody's information so the government can find people more easy. Isn’t like Will was going to drop of the grid. They were tracking him by satellite I really don’t think he was going to get too far or anybody who helped him for that matter. And I don’t get why it took him so long to find out how they were tracking him but after he found out he was being tracked by clothes. Simple advice ,get naked! I don’t think anybody not even the government can track bare cheeks and if they can there is really a problem. The government should not have that much access to personal information. After the point of knowing where you are, who you are and what you do, if you are not in the current process of putting someone else's’ life in danger then your personal profile should not longer be of valid access. Which brings me to the point of how there are so many cameras all over and the government can calls other people in different parts of town. In tunnels where cars drive and even ask gas station stores for their video security tapes but when real murders happen nobody sees them! WHAT?! What is that? In the movie Wills’ individual freedom should have been off limits because he was in no way putting anyone else in danger. The only thing he was trying to do was stay out of danger. And if all of that technology was not what the government really uses, then they need to upgrade! There is no excuse for all the things that happen in this world an nobody does anything about it like the people who actually are doing bad things are nowhere to be found, that’s a bunch of B.S.. Something can be done, nobody just wants to do anything because they aren’t getting anything out of it. 

Enemy Of The State

Posted by Candace Blocker in American Government - Herman on
-how the government is portrayed in the film

to me they're portrayed as being corrupt, untrustworthy.


-how individual citizens' privacy is respected

It wasn't respected at all. They had camera's throughout his house and clothing. It was no privacy and no respect.


-your opinion on level of access the govt should have to your personal info

I feel as though because of 9/11 I know understand why government has so much information. But it should be a limit on how much they can access and view. 


-when individual freedoms can/should be restricted for safety of community

When can it? I don't think it will ever be able to. Because government wants to monitor just about every single thing and everywhere we travel. 

Sept 11 video

Posted by Joseph Wood in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
The video the made me feel the most had to be the one with the man.  There were a couple powerful part in the movie but the one that really hit me hard was when you saw the light slowly being brought back into his room.  It looked like something falling but it was a shadow.  You know right away that it was tower one that was the shadow that was falling.  But that was not the powerful the part I am talking about is when he doesn't even stop to think why there is now light seen in his room but instead he is so happy that his dead wifes flowers grow, but when he goes to show he, he finally realizes that for many years his wife has been dead and he starts to cry.  To me I think it is to symbolize all the people in America that were crying on that day that the light came into the building.  I still remember that day 9/11/01 like it was yesterday as weird as it seems so when i see videos or documentary I get a sick feeling and get emotional so all of this videos made me have feeling but the one with the old man made me have the most.

Spy Games

Posted by Shamarlon Yates on
Simply put, this movie made me very fearful. I came into this class thinking that government agencies like the CIA and NSA had to have a warrant to spy on Americans. It is very fearful to know that my personal information such as phone calls or emails is accessible by the government at the snap of a finger. Since watching this movie, the thought of the government listening on my phone calls with my mom or sister is constantly in the back of my head. In the film, the government is portrayed in a very negative, cynical, powerful, and omnipresent way. The image of the government was very negative because people were abusing their power and doing a lot of illegal things. The government seemed to have all the power because they could track Will Smith anywhere he went and could easily listen in on his conversations. I do not think that anyone’s privacy was respected in this film. Will Smith himself also obtained the video tape of the mob boss in a somewhat illegal way. The NSA on the other hand was able the bug his house, his clothes and cellphone without a warrant. They knew that the only way to achieve their goals was to not respect people’s privacy. One important point that was made by Larry King at the end of the movie when he was interviewing a congressman. He said, “How do we draw the line between the protection of national security,...the government’s need to gather intelligence and the protection of civil liberties.” Some way along the way we have to sacrifice at least one of the things listed. I think that the government’s mindset is to be safe than sorry. This is why they listen in on the conversations of a lot of Americans. I think that it is a good thing that the government listen in on people’s conversations, but at the same time, I would also like for my personal rights to be protected. I believe that one way that we can prevent events like 9/11 from happening again is by monitoring people. Although I myself would not like to be monitored, you can never truly know the good guys from the bad guys without monitoring everyone. The government has a right to investigate people and keeps its citizens safe. It is important to note that in the movie, it was a bunch of rouge NSA agents that were persecuting Will Smith. In real life, I believe that the NSA only targets individuals that they truly suspect of wrong doing. Once the NSA has enough evidence to implicate you of being a terrorist, I believe that this is time when individual freedom should be restricted for the safety of the larger community. This movie really helped me to see things from both perspectives.

Enemy of the State

Posted by Loren Jenkins on
-how the government is portrayed in the film?
* The government is portrayed as the enemy. They are killing people for no reason and destroying peoples lives. They are seen to be creeping into peoples personal live. They seem to have no life to be following someone like this over a crime that was never in there hand. I feel as though they could have been the bigger person, and sat down with Will Smith to have a professional meeting.

-how individual citizens' privacy is respected?
* Their privacy is not respected. They have sneaked into peoples homes and posted cameras around all of their homes. It seems creepy to me that people are hovering over someone and finding out al of there business. 

-your opinion on level of access the govt should have to your personal info?
* I think that on a scale of 1-10 I would give the government an 4. I would say enough to know where we live, work, and the bills that we pay. Anything else like who we talk to, where we shop, how much money we spend and have shouldn't be none of there business. 
-when individual freedoms can/should be restricted for safety of community?
*Only when you have proof on hand such as on paper, video, person, or photo. Therefore you can get a secured warrant and conduct the correct procedure correctly. 

Blog Post 1: September 11 Shorts

Posted by Kenisha Hood in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
This is a response to the last video with the death lady. In the class discussion, I noticed a lot of people got the impression that the end meant that you shouldn't leave the house mad at someone you love but I think the message of this film was much more deeper then that, but I'm not sure how. I like how we were able to feel what it was like to be in the shoes of the woman in the video since she was deaf and then how in the middle of the film, we were able to hear normally and then it went right back. I was confused on the part about the woman in the film talking about her hearing voices. It made me think that the guy in the film really was not returning home after he left for work. Either way, returning or not, I'm not really not sure how I would feel if he did return v.s if he did not come back alive. What stood out most to me was the audio and I think it was really creative how the director took advantage of that. I believe that the fact that she was deaf and a mute had a lot to do with the message of the film. I think it reflects on America in general. Overall, this film stood out the the most to me and it affected me the most. 

9/11 Blog Post

Posted by Brianna Perrin in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
Out of all the short films, the one that touched me the most was the last one we watched. When we watch movies we always expect or want music to explain to us the emotion for the scene we are watching. Another way to show the type of emotion is of course the tone of a characters voice. In this short film there was no audio to us at all except when the man was talking on the phone to one of his friends. This was just for us to look at the perspective of the woman since she is deaf. In the beginning was where she just moved to New York and the man was deaf tourist and that's how they met. Her laying on the piano showed how she can feel vibrations and can feel a little which came up again when she was typing her letter. She saw her coffee mug shaking, table moving and the dog barking. She knew something was going on but she just didn't know what it was. It made me anxious and frustrated when she kept walking to the television and almost saw what was going on but kept going back to the computer to finish writing her letter. Finally at the end of the letter she wrote basically should she leave and end the relationship or should she wait for a miracle, than he shows up at the door covered in dust and dirt. This element to me is surprising to me because in the beginning she tells him that she had a dream that a voice told her he wasn't coming back home. To me, if the fight had not have lasted the length that it did and he left earlier than he might actually be dead. Also it's like she saved her relationship thanks to this miracle but it's also a tragedy to everyone else in the city that lost loved ones. I kind of want to see how this scene would end if he left earlier or if she wasn't deaf. Would she look at the tv sooner and try to go after him. Overall the silent to the short scene just added more of an element of surprise that made me question other elements in the film.

September 11- Response

Posted by Siani Widman in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
 I think the video that made an impact on me the most was the 2nd video with the guy never got over the fact that his wife had passed. It started off with the dead flowers and to be honest I never understood that part and why the flowers were the subject at the moment. The part when when it went to the guy and he was talking to his "wife" and looking for a new outfit for "her" to wear was really confusing. I assumed that she died during the plane crash and that it was sort of like an anniversary type thing. 
Later, however, as the video progressed as the man was asleep, the twin towers were hit and as one began to fall the light began to come through the window into the appartment. That was the most powerful part of the video because it made me think like, imagine the people that were home close by as the towers collapsed and how the lighting and scenery changed. It made me think and left a big impression on me.  
Then when the flowers came back to life and the guy woke up to them excited. He seemed happy to me but I just thought it was strange. It wasn't til the end that I realized that it wasn't until the light came in that the guy woke up from his delusion that his wife was long gone. Pretty sad ending and again very powerful as the last tower fell and its shadow disappeared from the outside walls of the appartment.

Enemy Of State Reflection

Posted by Yasmeen Brownlee in American Government - Herman on


Enemy of State was a fast paced movie of intrigue showing just how much power the government has over each US citizens "Privacy". As well as how much power they have that unless dealt with on extreme conditions they strength cannot be met. I never realized how far technology had advanced into each persons personal privacy. From satellites from outer space that brought google earth into creation, can be used against the average joe. Lets not forget bugs as well as cameras that can be snuck into a persons home as surveillance. The government is portrayed in the film as people who want to accomplish or go through whatever means they have to in order to get what it is they want. and Killing someone or even ruining their lives seem to all be likely solutions to their problems or what is portrayed in the movie. Though it is a pretty biased stand point only showing the government as people from a bad perspective on interested in saving their own rear ends. Though i'm sure all of the technology that they have can be used for good as much as it was used for bad maybe even more. I believe that it is true that the government should be aware that there is a limit to how much information that they are allowed to access or use against someone. They shouldn't be able to view personal information on a daily basis in less there is a valid reason for invading someones privacy. As well as laws and consequences for abuse the right of citizens for their own selfish and or greedy reasons. They should also have professional documents in which would allow them the accesses of personal invasion of privacy. 



9/11 Short Film Response

Posted by Margaret Long in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
​The film that hit me the hardest was the one with the old guy in it. I loved the editing of the video and the different camera views of it. They used slow motion and music in the video very well. I thought the best part was at the end when the tower comes down and lets the light in and grows the flowers. It took me a little bit to figure out what was going on, but I realized after some time that the flowers were given life after so many people met with death. It was sad to see the reality of it all. I can take back that sometimes with death, comes life, and with life, comes death. They work hand in hand almost. I really think this video shows how these have a connection to each other. 

Enemy of the State - JHinton

Posted by Jessica Hinton in American Government - Herman on

Being that this wasn't the first time I've seen this movie, I always feel that this is one of Tony Scott's best films. Anyways, when you watch a movie for enjoyment, it's totally different than watching, and trying to pick out specific things. It was weird watching it, after learning about the USA PATRIOT Act. To realize that all of the technical things are attainable now, is kind of crazy. And to think that there are people who have to listen in on the private things that people speak about, email, or text to others is kind of weird. It would be nice to speak to someone with this job, and see how it affects them as an individual.

In the movie, the government is portrayed as being SUPERIOR! Not that they aren't, but the government officials in the movie acted as if they were the only important things living. It was also kind of weird to see that the different government agencies didn't really work together. It was like they each had their own agendas to tend to. 

The citizens in the movie, were treated as though they weren't "human beings". Kind of like the government officials were the only people that should really have a say so in what takes place in the country. It was kind of like they let people believe they're living their own "private lives", while in reality, they're really being invaded by appointed government officials.

Honestly, if the government was spying on me, there isn't anything to do to prevent it. How does one go about telling someone higher up than me, that they can't dig into my personal life? I've known before that the government can monitor certain technical aspects of our lives, but now I'll definitely be a bit more cautious of things I send out now, just because I see the bigger picture of the whole thing. In a way, I'm not opposed to it, because it's supposed to be for "our own good", but I'm also not totally excited about it either. We're subject to these conditions, because of the world we live in. We'll just have to get over it.