I have a mixed impression of this film. I agree with two opposing viewpoints on this documentary. On the one hand, the government of almost any country in the world (especially authoritarian) tries to monitor its citizens, including both online and offline, through video cameras, etc. and from this point of view, the authors raise an important problem of today’s e-society. Big Brother has been watching you and watching you (but remember the context in which these words were said). But on the other hand, the film is very limited in its horizons, i.e. in the film there are only activists of this movement, as well as those who openly sympathize with them. There is no independent or disinterested viewpoint in this film. And that brings us to the point where this documentary has entered the orbit of political propaganda, whether or not you support its views. Of course, not everything is so bad in the film and some truth is present, however, as one aphorism says, where to find the forces that can help to reveal where the truth is and where ... exaggerations. That's the word -- exaggeration -- that's been around throughout this film. On the one hand, I want to show solidarity with the main characters of this film - hackers - but on the other hand, if you look at some of their actions, it turns out that it is very similar to hooliganism or in the best case - a game. At times, I found it difficult to associate these hackers with free speech activists or First Amendment activists. I'll give you an example. The main character of the film (or one of the main ones) was arrested and imprisoned (although he served only a year, because he was released due to a decision of a higher court) for taking advantage of the holes in the AT&T website, published a list of e-mail addresses of people associated with the government. I did not quite understand exactly what he had done there, because to publish a list of addresses of people even cooperating with the state apparatus does not seem to me anything too dangerous and illegal. Another, more serious misdemeanor was hacking into FBI bank cards and transferring money to charities like the Red Cross. This example shows the essence, if not all, then a significant part of hacker groups, when such acts are committed against state structures simply because you do not like them (regardless of who is in power, Democrats or Republicans). In fact, anarchism is the ideology that comes closest to such movements. But it must be admitted that such childishness, which some people may describe as hooliganism, are not so innocent. On the other hand, how fair is a sentence of 3, 10 or even 105 years? Yes, the hackers featured in the film are breaking the law, but is their guilt really substantial enough to be given such harsh terms? My answer is no, not that much.
The film features several main characters, subsequently sentenced to the above terms from 3 to 105 years (probably in this case, the term will be significantly reduced). And plus, a few hacking groups. As I understand it, in most cases we are talking about only one, under which the FBI agents dug and the participant of which was imprisoned for 105 years. The trouble with the whole film is that, as one English-speaking viewer of this film very accurately noted, it was shot by associates and was intended for associates of these hacker movements. This is a very important point, because I had a strong feeling that the director of the film did not really try to make a film that will be interesting and understandable to a wide audience. The film is made in such a way that there are a lot of separate frames in it, which are constantly cut off in the middle. One gets the feeling that they — these embedded frames — are mainly for those who are “in the subject” and who understand what is being discussed at all. In other words, I didn’t like the way the film was made. From my point of view, the film is made by a layman and the film is very far from such films as the BBC, in which even such complex topics as physics, chemistry and biology are explained in a way that even a child understands. This movie is just made for his own sake. And that is why the film is extremely one-sided and shot as if for his own party. And yes, the film only mentions cases involving the United States itself. As we can see, in aggregate, the film is suitable only for a general, very general reflection on the topic “How far can the state go in the matter of surveillance of citizens and how useful is the activity of hackers in trying to counter these attempts of the state for the whole society?”. This is not as simple a question as it may seem, but the film still stimulates the viewer to find answers to these and other questions.
P.S. Yes, the film will also mention WikiLeaks (and its activities), but I think it’s pretty clear what it’s about. However, WikiLeaks is not the main character of this film and is present here as a beacon, so to speak.