How do you personally weigh in on that debate? How much liberty do you feel we can or should sacrifice for security? I think that’s a scary zone where we come in as entertainers and say, let’s present to you the hypothetical, dramatically, of why you should care. So I think now people are reeling from the “OK, so what?” When you tell them the consequence is we’ll be less secure, or you lose some convenience in your life, that’s when people tend to become placated. And they wouldn’t have bothered even paying lip service to it if Snowden hadn’t blown the whistle. What the president has been saying, how we have to strike a balance between privacy and security-the problem is they don’t. We use it all the time, every day, and we can’t imagine our lives now without it.
People love their phones, they love their Wi-Fi, they love being connected, and everything that’s wired is now being pushed into the cloud. Greg Plageman: Yeah, I really think the capacity for outrage has been mollified by convenience. Were you surprised by the public’s response, or lack thereof? But to what degree the public will actually put up with it is actually a question we’re trying to deal with now on the show. As the story’s developed, there’s been a slow trickle of information from Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian and the Washington Post, in terms of the documents they have from Snowden, to try to keep the story on the front burner. William Binney, another NSA whistleblower who’s not on the run, has been saying this publicly for years, which points to this other interesting aspect-the fact that the general public may not care if there’s a massive surveillance state. Not to sound snobby, but for people who were carefully reading the newspapers, they weren’t revelations at all. “We were right, oh, dear, we were right.” Shane Harris, who’s joining us on the panel on Friday, is the one we went to again and again for research, and PRISM was really the tip of the iceberg. Jonathan Nolan: With a mixture of jubilation and horror. Now that we have definitive proof that the government is watching us, you guys get to say, “I told you so,” with regard to the surveillance on “Person of Interest.” How did you react when you heard about the government’s PRISM surveillance program, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden? I want to start with the elephant in the room: the NSA spying revelations. We caught up with the pair to talk about the balance between privacy and security, the “black box” of Gmail and the cell phone panopticon in Nolan’s The Dark Knight.
Both writers will appear at the Lemelson Center symposium, “ Inventing the Surveillance Society,” this Friday, October 25, at 8 p.m. “Person of Interest” has been ahead of the curve on government surveillance since it debuted in 2011, but showrunners Nolan and Greg Plageman ( NYPD Blue, Cold Case) have been following the topic for years. The show’s two main characters, ex-CIA agent John Reese (Jim Caviezel) and computer genius Harold Finch (Michael Emerson), use this power for good, chasing the social security numbers the system identifies to prevent violent crimes, but they’re constantly fighting to keep the Machine out of the wrong hands. The “Machine” at the center of “Person of Interest” is an all-seeing artificial intelligence that tracks the movements and communications of every person in America-not through theoretical gadgetry, but through the cell phone networks, GPS satellites and surveillance cameras we interact with every day. In the wake of recent revelations about NSA surveillance, however, those words hew closer to reality than science fiction.
#Person of interest whistle phone tv
“ You are being watched.” This warning opens every episode of the hit CBS TV series, “ Person of Interest,” created by The Dark Knight screenwriter Jonathan Nolan.
0 kommentar(er)
