見方の違いだな

下記の動画を見る前に「見方の違いだな」を英語で表現するとどうなるか考えてみてください。



Blofeld: Information is all, is it not? For example, you must know by now that the double o program is officially dead, which leads me to speculate exactly why you came. So, James, why did you come?
Bond: I came here to kill you.
Blofeld: And I thought you came here to die.
Bond: Well, it's all a matter of perspective.

情報を扱うのは諜報期間であることは昔も今も変わっていませんが、そのやり方が変わりつつあり、007のいた部署がなくなるというのがこの映画の大きなトピックでもありました。



C: In the light of the new information I have given him, he has decided to close down the double-o program with immediate effect.
M: You don't know what you' re doing.
C: It's not personal. It's the future, and… you're not.
M: You're a cocky little bastard are you?
C: I'll take that as a compliment.
M: I wouldn't. This isn't over yet.

「データ監視やドローン」と「スパイ」が対比され、機械vs人間のようなお決まりの対立に対して再考を促すようなOp-Edがワシントンポストにありました。このエッセイはネタバレもあるので、注意が必要です。ここで引用する部分にはネタバレはありません。

Is James Bond more moral than a drone?
By Alyssa Rosenberg November 9

The discussion of security policy proceeds from there along two tracks. In the first, “Spectre” suggests that government reliance on surveillance plays into the hands of potentially evil data-hoarding corporations. And in the second, the film suggests that someone like James Bond is ultimately more moral than a drone program because he can exercise moral authority and is closer to the facts on the ground. Neither amounts to much.

“Spectre” doesn’t really have thoughts on privacy or the unnerving ends to which a more benign government could put large stores of data. Instead, the movie’s ideas mostly come down to a sentiment M voices early in the movie. “I know surveillance is a fact of life. It’s how you use it and who’s using it that concerns me,” he tells C. Surveillance technology is bad when bad people use it. It’s dandy when it means Q (Ben Whishaw) can put nanobots in Bond’s blood to track him in ways with satisfying operational implications, or when it means that M can outflank C (who, of course, turns out to be working for the bad guys) and tell him smugly, “Not a good feeling being watched, is it?”

The argument that James Bond himself is a more morally sophisticated tool of the British government than drone strikes doesn’t advance further. “To pull that trigger, you have to be sure,” M argues. “A license to kill is also a license not to kill.” He suggests that double-0 agents have to look the people they kill in the eye, which is true, but, perhaps wisely given Bond’s body count, doesn’t argue that 007 can avoid collateral damage that drone strikes cannot.

“A license to kill is also a license not to kill.”というのは印象的なセリフとして他のサイトでも紹介されています。データをもとにコンピュータで遠隔処理するのではなく、人間が現場に立ち会って判断するんだというセリフは一般人にとってはうなづきたくものですが。ポストのこのエッセイはドローンの方が巻き添え被害を避けられるケースもあるのではないか。007は敵を必要以上に殺害しているのではないだろうか、となんとも真っ当な意見を述べています。

ドローンに関する映画は少し前に日本でも公開されていましたが、こちらも遠隔操作で人を殺していくことには批判的トーンでした。



どちらがいいのかは難しい議論でまさにit's all a matter of perspective.だと思います。でも、スパイ活動だけでなく、データ分析にしても、ドローン操作にしても、今の段階では、どれにしてもまぎれもなく人が操作しているには変わりありませんので、関わっている人の資質が問われるという点ではどれも共通ではないでしょうか。大きな転機が来るのは、人工知能にそのような判断を委ねることかもしれません。