Another Movie, Still No Progress

A little while ago, I wrote a blog post about Hollywood's extreme whitewashing in the upcoming film Exodus: Gods and Kings (here). This week, another one has come to my attention: Pan. Set to be released July of next year, Pan is Hollywood's newest rendition of the well-known story, Peter Pan. The character under heavy scrutiny is Tiger Lily, who was cast in March as Rooney Mara. Tiger Lily, traditionally portrayed as Peter Pan's close friend and the princess of the Indian Tribe of Neverland, was (logically) expected to be cast as a woman of color. When this news came out, it sparked a massive controversy: Tweets, hashtags, and petitions protesting this decision swarmed the internet in the following weeks.

Mara's controversial cast portrait (as 'Tiger Lily') in
comparison with the original animation

While Mara has the credentials to be playing such a major role (much like the white leading actors in Exodus), that does not mean that appropriate racial casting should continue to be pushed aside. It is blatantly obvious that Mara is far from being of American Indian descent, and there isn't a way to get around that with makeup or costuming that wouldn't come off disrespectful. This includes the bewildering choice to put red makeup around her eyes in her cast photo, which obscenely perpetuates the "redface" stereotype.

To make things worse, director Joe Wright stated in March that he was "planning to create a world that [is] very international and multiracial," and it has turned out to be just the opposite: the entire cast is white. Given a movie known for its extremely racist portrayal of American Indians, directer Joe Wright had an opportunity to advance the film industry (much like the casting of Mizuo Peck as Sacajawea in Night at the Museum did). Instead, he chose to take another step backwards. This industry has an unfathomable influence on society and the younger generation, and until it can understand the seemingly clear boundaries, how can we expect anyone else to?

Innovative or Unconstitutional?

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal released an article detailing the Justice Department (DOJ)'s newest criminal surveillance method: aerial phone tracking. Essentially, a small black box on the plane (called a dirtbox) mimics a cell phone tower so that the target's cell phone will connect to the plane instead of a real tower. Once connected, the dirtbox collects information from the phone that identifies the owner and, most importantly, gives their location (within approximately 10 feet).

While the DOJ neither refuses nor denies the existence of this program, it could prove to be either a very positive method or a very negative one. If the suspect is indeed carrying their phone, it would allow law enforcement officials to be 100% sure of the suspect's location, when they wouldn't have been able to before. But at the same time, if the suspect figures out that he/she has been tracked, he/she could set the officers up, potentially putting them in a very dangerous, life-threatening situation. On top of this risk, the announcement has created a controversy among a plethora of civil rights groups.

Many groups are arguing that since this device reportedly collects the personal data of thousands of Americans (without their consent) while searching for its one suspect, it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite these claims, the DOJ maintains that "all federal investigations are consistent with federal law and are subject to court approval," adding that the dirtbox does not save any information that does not pertain to its current investigation.

If this report is accurate and this program is currently in action, should it be shut down on the grounds of unconstitutionality and overall risk? Or is it worth it because it might have the potential to greatly advance law enforcement efficiency?

Google's Next Big Thing

Google is known for its big ideas - driverless cars, Google Glass, diabetes-detecting contacts, and more. Just a few days ago, Google X (Google's semi-secret research facility) announced its newest venture: a nanoparticle pill that could identify cancers, heart attacks and other diseases before they become a problem. Though still in its infancy, Google X has described it as "analogous to sending thousands of doctors down into the population of a large city to monitor what is going on with individuals." When it detects that something's amiss (i.e. high sodium levels, plaque indicating an eminent heart attack, or even cancerous cells), it sends a "message" to an external device that then notifies the wearer. Google says this project could take anywhere from 5 to 10 years to complete, but when it's finished, it will revolutionize the medical industry. 


With this pill, people would be able to upload data into the cloud (which raises some concern) and send it to their doctors, therefore eliminating the need to have as many doctors and/or doctors offices. There wouldn't be any need for the blood and urine tests traditionally required to find an illness, seeing as "we’d simply swallow a pill and monitor for disease on a daily basis." We would know everything that is going on in our bodies, at all times. As a result, the amount of lives that would be saved is unimaginable. Not only would illnesses be detected sooner, but new treatments could be found for ones with currently unknown causes. This pill would turn reactive care into proactive care.

Although this could be one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in history, would it considered "playing God"? Is it too risky too have personal medical data on the cloud? Or is it exactly where medical care should be heading, to keep up with the way society is transforming technologically?