Enemy of Realistic Surveillance Depictions
Enemy of the State, a widely popular political action thriller starring Will Smith is much more than just a gripping nail-biter, it was a look into the realities of modern-day surveillance techniques and their relation to the ever-growing digital landscape. The pervasive power of surveillance was constantly on the minds of audiences in 1998 with the traction of internet profiles and communication platforms. While the movie did well at the time of its release, its relevance truly peeked only a few years later, in a post 9/11 world.
If you haven't seen the film, it follows Robert Dean, a prominent lawyer in DC, when he, as the title suggests, is made an enemy of the state, more specifically the NSA. Without his knowledge he obtained a recording of the murder of a congressman by the director of the NSA. His life is completely uprooted by the tradecraft and alienation tactics that the director employs to ensure that the video does not go public. Some of these techniques actually exist or are at least based on real capabilities, others are far-fetched, even in today's world.
Parallels to the Patriot Act and Prism
The reason for the congressman’s murder was the passing of a bill that increases the power of intelligence agencies for both foreign and national relations. 2001 is when we see that this film may have presented some unique foreshadowing for our real world. In the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed. The bill basically expanded the capabilities of American intelligence in interests related to terrorism. It meant that intelligence would be better equipped to investigate potential terrorist threats, organized crime, and drug trafficking. The bill also allowed for greater punishment to fall on perpetrators of conspiracy and terrorism related offenses. So far, this sounds solid. It seems reasonable that the government would go to any length to prevent future acts of terrorism and punish those responsible. Critics of the bill mostly brought up future hypotheticals with the concern that civil rights would be violated. The worry was that it could impede the first amendment because of searches enacted by the excursion of someone's first amendment right. But these criticisms fell on deaf ears as most of the country, not to mention government officials, were focused on solving the issue at hand.
Where things really start to parallel Enemy of the State, is ten years later when the existence of PRISM was exposed by Edward Snowden. PRISM was a program used by the NSA to collect internet and communications data from various communications companies. Unbeknownst to the public, the NSA was collecting and storing data in unbelievably large quantities in the interest of national safety. The process was supposed to look like this: the government (NSA) along with the Data Intercept Technology Unit would make targeted selections, the selections would be individuals they deem potential threats. Then this list would be sent to internet communication providers. The providers (U.S. only) were legally obligated to hand over the communications information regarding the selected individuals. However, the NSA wasn’t following their own rules. The data was being misused for personal interests or obtained in such large quantities that the privacy of untargeted individuals came into question. This is where controversy rears its ugly head again because many U.S citizens became increasingly concerned that their privacy would be unfairly encroached on, mostly because this program, with the help of a set of strategic bills, made it easy for the NSA to bypass warrants. In most ways, the concern was legitimate. As it stands today, the NSA states that the program is concerned only with the gathering of foreign intelligence information under court supervision. They have stated that the program does not encroach on U.S. citizen’s privacy because they must obtain a warrant to search citizen data. This statement though, didn’t resonate with a lot of Americans who were suddenly paranoid that the government was watching them. The reality is that...they could. Hopefully only in the interest of safety and national intelligence. Enemy of the State was so thrilling because we were led to believe that the NSA could easily strip us of our lives if they wanted to. Maybe they could, but the heavy action and drama of the film wasn’t completely consistent with modern day capabilities.
Wiretapping
One tactic constantly shown in Enemy of the State is wiretapping. While based on real techniques, most Hollywood movies portray exaggerated and unrealistic wiretapping methods. In reality wiretaps require court approval. Most of these approvals come with a tedious list of rules and instructions to ensure that the federal government isn’t encroaching on innocent individual’s rights. For example, it is common for the court approval to come with a time limit rule. In some cases, a phone call can only be listened to in 90 second increments. If illegal activity is not mentioned within that 90-second window, authorities must stop listening and can only tap in again once another 90 seconds passes.
Trackers and Tiny Cameras
The trackers put into various articles of clothing worn by Robert Dean are mostly possible. Location tracers can be made to be very small and inconspicuous. The unrealistic part of the trackers in the movie is that they use a satellite signal. It is more likely that a powerful tracker would use a ground signal for better accuracy. In today's would trackers like these could be considered unnecessary. Today your location is most often traced though the devices you use. No need for a tracker in the sole of your shoe, now your iPhone has all the location tracking capabilities you need. Even when your phone is off, we know it still sends signals. There are simply easier ways to track someone than replacing their coat buttons with tiny satellite-controlled tracking devices.
That's not to say that the spy cameras shown in the film are in the same boat as the tracking devices. We know now that cameras hidden in pens and coat buttons did exist. Are they still used today, who knows, but the seemingly outdated spyware has been depicted again and again in film, probably because it actually exists. It is safe to say that spy ware has probably become far more advanced considering you can get a hidden camera pen on Amazon for about $30.
Facial Recognition
With the constant advancement of Artificial Intelligence, facial recognition software has skyrocketed. Something that could only be found in science fiction movies now sits in the palm of our hand every time we unlock our phones. In Enemy of the State facial recognition software is used to identify an individual seen on security cameras. This type of technology is enhanced by AI today, making it faster and more reliable. AI is better equipped to quickly match a face with one already on record. The key here is that there has to be a matching face in the records you comb through. In the film, facial recognition is used to identify an ex-NSA employee. This could work because the NSA’s records would most likely have an employee ID photo for this person.
Satellites and Silly Mistakes
The biggest fallacy that this film presents is the capabilities of satellites. Like we mentioned earlier, satellites aren’t as accurate as ground signals for tracking someone's location. Apart from this, satellites are also not equipped to get head on shots of people. A satellite has a bird's eye view, so it becomes very difficult to look at anything besides the top of a person's head. That’s not to say it's impossible, it’s just not something you could calculate and set up in a matter of seconds as scene in this movie. It probably wouldn’t be possible from a van either, these types of tracking tactics would require a ground station.
While Enemy of the State has many flaws, it did strike an interesting nerve with audiences, promoting even more paranoia that the government is always watching. The film illustrated how the boundaries between surveillance, security, and privacy are often blurred. It stands to remind us that the tension and ethics between protecting information and preserving individual freedoms is a delicate balance. The constant evolution of our digital landscape comes with the necessary persistence of our vigilance. Alongside innovation comes the safeguarding of ourselves from those very innovations. Each advancement comes with a new set of rules, a new guideline for protection. While Enemy of the State is fiction, it still reminds us to fear the unregulated and question the unchecked power of surveillance in our society.
