The title of the film "Enemy of the State" is intriguing. From the point of view of the movie alone, the party opposed to the government will be portrayed as the "public enemy of the state", but the audience from God's perspective will really know who is the "public enemy of the state". Everyone can't bear to dig deep, even Dean, who looks upright and brave in the movie, because no matter how small the stain will be, it will be magnified infinitely, and unnecessary dirty water will be splashed over. Everyone who is out of the way, but who wants to make value judgments about whoever is through extremely one-sided and biased reports and speeches, is narrow-minded and blind, impulsive and easy to control. The online media has repeatedly "reversed" and people's stances are constantly changing, all of which are showing us a microcosm of the "post-truth era", that is, the need for emotional alignment is far greater than the desire for truth. Of course, the film does not show much about the public's reaction to public opinion, but as the title suggests, the film already reminds us to be extremely cautious about information.
There are two parties with clear opposing views in the film, one is represented by Senator Philips who opposes the government's surveillance of the people, while the other party is represented by Senator Thomas who supports the government's surveillance of the people. The latter's rhetoric is that the government can protect the interests of a larger part of the people by monitoring terrorists and suppressing evil forces. At first glance, it seems to make some sense, but if you think about it carefully, there are many places to explore. Once this set of rhetoric is rationalized and the entire set of behaviors legalized, the government has the right to interpret this set of rhetoric and the right to define the words in it. What is a terrorist? What is the evil force? What is the benefit? Judging from the movie, Dean may be defined as a terrorist, which will be a country dominated by the government. I have read in an article Rousseau's explanation of the process of state formation in "The Social Contract": Citizens surrender part of their rights, jointly form state power, and manage society on their behalf. While we ceded the right to privacy, we also made the power of the state more pervasive. This power has no directivity and is above everyone.
During the epidemic, I filled out N kinds of personal information registration, which covered everything from ID card, phone number, home address, parental status, etc. I don't have the energy and I'm lazy to check whether the information registration and collector is a formal official, whether it has the ability to protect my information from being leaked, act according to the rules, obey, and indifferent to privacy awareness. learned from the larger environment. Li Yanhong also once said that "the Chinese are more willing to trade privacy for efficiency." Although it was bombarded, the phenomenon does exist. In the late stage of the epidemic in China, we felt that in many Western countries, the mere act of wearing a mask caused them to rush into the streets in anger, shouting "Freedom, no restrictions on human rights." This kind of behavior makes them feel Weird and incomprehensible. In terms of managing the epidemic between China and foreign countries, the magical differences and the current situation require us to discuss the issue of "how much is the transfer of the right to privacy be considered reasonable".
The epidemic is regarded as a very special event, and the centralized management of information has obvious advantages over the decentralized management of information in this event. But this does not prove that the former is necessarily better than the latter. There is no system or strategy that is permanently established and reasonable. Things are fluid, but policies are solid. It is wrong to deal with fluid things in a solid state. In my opinion, perhaps the most efficient way to deal with things is to flexibly change and regulate the transfer of privacy rights, which requires the regulatory authorities to monitor and adjust the government's public power from time to time. Of course, it also raises a series of questions, such as is the transfer of privacy rights reversible? How to ensure the effective monitoring of the government by the regulatory authorities?
View more about Enemy of the State reviews
