Bond vs. Big Data
Why super-villains of the future are too cool for nuclear weapons
Over the last sixty years, James Bond has been the key indicator of the world’s super villain for every generation. World domination agendas aside, the nationalities of Bond villains have helped spell out pop culture enemy #1 for moviegoers worldwide. Russia, Germany, Afghanistan and most frequently in the Bond franchise, apparently Britain itself.
This week’s Bond offering Spectre, does something peculiar. It builds up towards a grand series-finale of sorts with a super villain long invested in destroying 007. But there is no bone-chilling Dr. Julius No or Auric Goldfinger, and certainly no Russia or Korea. The film attempts to reveal a monster (mastermind Ernst Blofeld) who simply fails to, well, monster anybody.
Instead of just another friendly neighborhood psychopath, British Intelligence must face its ultimate nemesis — Big Data. The all-listening, all-seeing, remote farms of information waiting to be used (or abused). Armed with the same weapon, even an international government surveillance collaborative (CNS in the film) is equally at risk of becoming the monster we once reserved for larger than life villains.
In recent history, the greatest threat of modern warfare has been nuclear weaponry, because incalculable potential for destruction was always just a switch away. Surveillance, on the other hand, is a new breed of weapon that is perpetually on fire.
The danger isn’t that the data may be used. The danger is that the data exists.
Therefore, perhaps it was by design that Christopher Waltz’s villain or the self-appointed head of the Centre for National Security were less than menacing in the film. The narrative seemed to vilify the trigger more than the person pulling the trigger. It could be anybody, and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Surveillance is the new nuke. Big Data, the new world order.
