Imagine a Bond movie in which 007 does all his work from behind a desk. That would mean no adventures in exotic locations, no beautiful women to bed, and no extreme car chases in a tricked-out Aston Martin. Just Bond, sitting in front of a computer screen, monitoring surveillance feeds and analyzing data. That is exactly what the future of espionage and counter-terrorism should be, according to Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott of Sherlock), also known as C, a character in the newest Bond film, Spectre. As the head of the upstart Centre of National Security, he wants access to the surveillance feeds of all the world’s major intelligence agencies, including MI-6. His organization would have the power to spy on anyone and everyone all over the world, as well as the power to deal with threats, unbound by any nation’s laws. Bond’s boss M (Ralph Fiennes), is understandably resistant to the idea of making George Orwell's novel 1984 a reality, but is powerless to stop the British government from handing over control of their intelligence gathering capabilities to CNS. It isn’t a big surprise when it turns out C’s agenda lines up with that of Spectre, the international crime syndicate that Bond is intent on stopping, with or without authorization.

.

Andrew Scott as 'C'

Spectre may not be one of the better Bond movies, but it does address the very real conflict between liberty and security in a globalized world. There are no evil organizations pulling the strings in the real world (none that I know of anyway), but putting so much power in the hands of one security firm or government threatens the very principles of democracy, as well as the rights of citizens to privacy and due process. That is not to say there are no serious threats to be protected from. As the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have reminded us, acts of terrorism can happen anywhere at any time, so it’s important, as a nation, to stay vigilant. However, there is a line between protecting and controlling citizens’ lives, a line our government and intelligence agencies continually cross. We shouldn’t put our entire lives in the hands of Big Brother, or allow private government agencies to treat us all as potential terrorists.

As far as real world surveillance policies go, a 2013 article from The Telegraph, estimates that there are over five million CCTV cameras in the UK, thousands of which can be found on city street corners, or even in public facilities like schools and hospitals. An article from BBC News says that legislation passed in November will allow British police forces and government agencies to compel Internet service providers to keep records of users’ online activity going back as far as a year. Warrants for such an action, as well as interception of communications, require approval from a government minister and a judge, but groups like Human Rights Watch are disturbed by the apparent lack of any other judicial oversight, and by the possibility that the minister could override a judge’s decision not to approve a warrant. Here in the United States, domestic surveillance may be easing up. A bill passed by Congress in June supposedly scales back the NSA’s ability to collect and store Americans’ phone records without a warrant, which might seem promising, but hardly represents the end of the surveillance state.

On that note, there's no real-life James Bond to save the day from a domestic security apparatus run amok. It's up to us as individuals to be more informed about government policy so we know when our rights are threatened by the systems meant to protect us.