Spielberg on Privacy, Minority Report

Staring at Nothing writes "In this ABC News story famed Hollywood director Steven Spielberg voices some concerns over the current state of privacy and paranoia in a post-9/11 world. Some of Spielberg's recent movies, like AI and Minority Report have brought us haunting views of the future, but the present may be just as scary. He mentions software being developed to monitor "abnormal behavior" and concerns about originality being misconstrued as dangerous behavior." The story has some minor plot spoilers about Minority Report.

Privacy as the new currency?

[UnknownQ]

I definately think privacy is used as a sort of currency in today's technological world. People will pay in goods and services if you fill out a survey. I'm ok with that, as long as I know what I'm getting for my privacy. What I hate is when punks steal my privacy.

Give credit where credit is due...

[wrinkledshirt]

I don't think Spielberg's the real expert here. AI was originally a project of Kubrick's, and Minority Report is based off PK Dick, both of whom were troubled about the future while Spielberg thought it would be a hoot doing movies about trucker road rage and aliens who can make bikes fly.

Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he'd try to capitalize on current social context to pump up his own film... Ah, yes, "relevence"...

If Spielberg cares, then...

[Anonymous Coward]

..he shouldn't fund terrorism.

But he does. He employs Tom Cruise, who will pay his cult, who will hire lawyers to attack innocent people.

It reminds me of that stupid drugs-terrorism superbowl commercial, except this one is real and the connection is obvious.

I'll pass on this movie, thankyouverymuch. Of if I do watch it, be assured it will be a pirated copy. Paying to watch this movie would be a form of treason.

Re:Tagline

[UncleAwesome]

Slashdot folks seem to play the role of the Dilbert boss when it comes to social issues. They expect the best of both worlds. They want uncompromising individual freedom and privacy, but at the same time expect the government to prevent bad stuff from happening to them. They set unreasonable expectations with unrealistic constraints and cry foul when government errs wrong on either side. They only seem to realize the existence of tradeoffs only in software projects and not within society. Its quite amusing in a sad clown sort of way.

Re:Tagline

[blibbleblobble]

"They[we] want uncompromising individual freedom and privacy, but at the same time expect the government to prevent bad stuff from happening to them."

Before you convince too many people of our hypocracy, most of us know the government can't stop "bad stuff" happening, and has no interest in doing so anyway

Given that, taking away freedom and privacy "to protect you" just adds insult to injury, as they implement policies (RIP, the terrorism bill) which stand no chance of protecting anyone, but take away the freedoms anyway.

cat common_sense | government

Re:Spielberg's 180

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with his addiction to dark movies these days?

What's with his addiction to giving said dark movies upbeat endings? I'll go see Minority Report (as I am a huge Dick fan), but fear the worst....

Ahhh the California seatbelt law!

[Newer Guy]

That would be the law that they pawned off on us about 10 years ago by saying: "This is for YOU...besides, we'll only cite someone $15.00 for not wearing their seatbelt if we've pulled them over for another infraction". Based upon these safeguards, the voters in California approved a seatbelt law... WELL GUESS WHAT?? Seems a couple of years ago, the CA legislature changed the law...without telling or involving the voters. Now they CAN pull you over JUST for not wearing your seatbelt..and the fine is now more then doubled too... This is how government works...they get the citizens to allow the door to be cracked open...next thing you know the door has been removed from its hinges!

Re:Tagline

[sheetsda]

bastardizing something that Ben Franklin had said regarding the most basic of human freedoms

While looking through a quote book looking for that quote, I found:

"Since the general civilizations of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison

Rather appropriate to our current situation IMO.

Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[WIAKywbfatw]

You thought Gattaca was a bad movie?

I don't know about the rest of the Slashdot crowd but I know I speak for more than a handful of people when I say that Gattaca was perhaps one of the best pieces of sci-fi that I've ever seen on the big screen.

Yeah, it doesn't have a ton of special effects but the film has everything - a good basic story, a few twists along the way, some great performances and a message that stays with you longer than the time it takes for the end credits to finish.

Compared to today's average "sci-fi" film - dross that's nothing more than eye candy, such as ID4 - Gattaca is mana from heaven.

If only all sci-fi was as beautifully-crafted and thought-provoking.

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truman Show? You must be kidding. Did you get the permission of us slashdot crowd over here beofore you uttered such hersey? Seesh man.

And to think you can sleep after having associated Gattaca with Truman Show. Come on dude, you need to find better movie buddies to hang out with. The shit you been snorting just makes you get attracted to Tom Cruise anyway.

Geez. Truman? And who's in it? Hahaha. DONT DO IT AGAIN ok.

Re:Tagline

[SuiteSisterMary]

This "seatbelt" bullshit makes me want to exact my patriotism and destroy any tyrant who dares impede my freedom to keep me "safe"

Lord knows it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that a person wearing a seatbelt is much more able to keep control of their vehicle in an emergency situation, and thus helps to avoid endangering OTHERS as well as yourself.

Re:So...

[commodoresloat]

What about the freedom to live from fear, the freedom to be able to make your choices without having options imposed upon you by faceless terrorists?

I don't mean to come off too obnoxious, but it is pathetic to me that someone expressing such cowardice would sign his posts "A True American Patriot" (I know your sig refers to "Russian Radical" writer Ayn Rand, but still). So these assholes hit a couple of our buildings, and may hit more. I'm far more worried about "options being imposed on me" by the likes of John Ashcroft than any terrorist. Don't get me wrong, terrorists are a threat in a very real sense, but they can't take our liberties away - we can only give them away. The sad thing is people wrapping themselves in the American flag as they give them up without even a freakin' fight.

Freedom is nothing without security, because without security you cannot truly be free. Therefore freedom is dependant upon security, and for you to argue otherwise is nonsense. Our Founders understood this; just look at the Second Amendment for a fine example of how they saw the need for security as being paramount!

First off, there's a reason the first Amendment comes first. Second, there is no tradeoff between liberty and security - these are abstract constructs that only make sense in real world situations. In the real world, there may be a tradeoff between a specific liberty (my right to drive a plane into a building) and a specific aspect of security (my ability to go to planes and/or buildings without being incinerated), but to say "you can't have liberty without security" is nonsense. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of restrictions on liberty we are being asked to endorse under the banner of the "war on terrorism" won't do a damn thing to address any real security threat. I am all for taking away people's right to hijack airplanes or blow things up. But we're being asked to give up a lot more. To simply endorse a "no liberty without security" position is to say you're willing to give up any old liberty in order to create whatever damn illusion of security your leaders happen to be waving in front of your face at this particular moment.

I was as devastated as anyone by the WTC collapsing, but after all the smoke cleared, we were hit by 20 people, who killed far fewer people than we as a society openly sacrifice in cost-benefit analyses every time we build a new highway (not to mention deaths we tolerate as a result of the alcohol and tobacco industries), and they hit us in a scheme that was clever but that just about everybody involved has practically admitted that they should have seen coming. The people we've caught - Reid, Massaoui, Lindh, Padilla - these are some fucked up people, no doubt, but are these really people we can't destroy without turning into a police state? Are we so afraid of a bunch of fanatical and fucked-up twenty-somethings who light their shoes on fire that we're willing to throw the Constitution out the window?

Re:can't let that go

[56ker]

"and don't listen to anyone who states their opinion as though it's some kind of fact." - the best summing up of Jon Katz I've heard in a long time! :o)

Re:Spielberg's 180

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they make movies in order.