Spectre: George Orwell’s Worst Nightmare
The 2015 release of Spectre, the 24th installment of the fearless, dashing, uber-masculine spy archetype, Bond, James Bond, ticked all of the usual boxes. There was a death-defying opening scene, beautiful women and romance, assassination, and, of course, foreign intrigue. And like the previous entries from the Bond franchise, these themes are updated to play on the social fears woven into the current political backdrop.
In this Bond film, the title character comes face to face with the head of “Spectre,” an extremely powerful and ruthless organized crime syndicate with global ambitions. Simultaneously, he is battling the rogue takeover of his own British government’s intelligence arm, and a resulting a partnership with the bad guys of a ubiquitous global surveillance system. It is a battle for democracy and a war fought between the golden age of spies and the modern day technology state.
In Spectre, Bond and his small inner circle are up against a corrupt government minister known as “C” who is set out to redefine the intelligence world and to bring British intelligence “out of the dark ages.” He mocks the defense of democracy as “moronic.” He believes that the “00” unit has become obsolete in their world of spying and human intelligence collection. Instead, “C” believes in the power of drone technology, satellites, and worldwide surveillance. He seeks to broker a powerful treaty that would expand a global partnership to include cooperation with previously unlikely partners, such as China.
The movie represents real life parallels to the intelligence community and society today. In 1946, the “Five Eyes” treaty was signed as an intelligence alliance between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America, and the United Kingdom. The treaty, also known as the UK-USA agreement, outlined the post-World War II guidelines for intelligence gathering and sharing among the countries and also formalized the “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and America. This classified treaty only became known to the world in 2005.
The 2013 leaks by NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed details of the mass data collection by the UK-USA agreement, and fueled speculation that these five westernized powers were collecting and sharing intelligence with each other. This workaround would allow the evasion of the laws that govern domestic spying of their own citizenry. Though such agreements may not be necessary with today’s broad legislation such as the Patriot Act and the recently enacted Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 in the UK, this charter specifically allows law enforcement and intelligence agencies a wide range of access to communications data, including a list of websites an individual has visited in the last year. This real-world legislation, coupled with the approximate five million surveillance cameras in the UK, could lead some to believe these to be mass surveillance powers, and to ask, how much is too much?
Played out against these hypermodern technologies and political implications, Spectre also provides another twist on the previous Bond formulas: ultimately, Bond is not the hero. Of course he wins the heart of and dramatically saves the life of the beautiful Dr. Madeleine Swann in typical Bond fashion, but ultimately it is “Q” and his computer hacking genius that saves the day. With mere hours to go before the launch of the world’s surveillance system run by “Spectre,” the balance of the world is spared when the enormous power of state surveillance is secured in the right hands.
But even with this satisfying plot, the question of whose hands are the “right hands” for surveillance persists. Many people today, especially since the Snowden revelations, believe that the government is playing the role of Big Brother and trust in the government has greatly diminished. From a law enforcement and homeland security perspective, there are many who support intelligence collection and surveillance measures in order to keep those safe. However, it is not a simple argument of “one or the other” or “all or nothing.” In fact, it is the government’s duty to find the most reasonable measure of security in the least intrusive way. One does not necessarily need to sacrifice safety or liberty to honor the other. Bond and his counterparts impart an important reminder that extreme surveillance does not have a role in a democratic society. Even if elements of it are justifiable and productive, when placed in the wrong hands, it can be catastrophic.
