Our ever-changing world is tremendously interconnected and will only continue to become so, thanks to the evolution of technology and globalization. This does not come without consequences, both advertent and otherwise. One of these is the blurring of lines and addition of dimensions that make traditionally held beliefs either inconsistent or obsolete: this occurs in the realm of security. I argue that the security of a nation’s citizens should be a governmental responsibility, though it most certainly will come with obstacles.

I believe that Mr. Bell’s work is phenomenal, and that his efforts alongside Global Risk International are, on the whole, positive. The pursuit of security in frightening territory for the sake of positively intended exploration is to be lauded. So too is the ‘hacktivism’ mentioned in the documentary, for out of an obscure (and sometimes highly treacherous) cyber world came some of the greatest activism of our generation.  However, the nature of these are both inevitably highly politically charged and in need of regulation. This is what is brought on by technological breakthroughs in a globalized world: unchartered and unprecedented waters that, since there is no existing legal framework, are taken into the hands of individuals and upon which incongruent laws are applied.  Both of these actions lead to dissatisfaction from all parties in place of the potentially great outcomes that could occur.

There is a real requirement for legislation to be created on these matters. There needs to be preemptive action now, rather than a case-by-case basis. This is because, as our two subjects have exemplified, the presence of these phenomena are both very much ubiquitous and in need of legal attention. While the courts should fight for this, there must also and always be the call towards government transparency. The degree of which varies of course, as the ongoing debate regarding men like Assange and Snowden demonstrate. The Anonymous activists have without doubt effected great change, from its sizeable influence in the Arab Spring, to continued protest against the ‘1%’. It is also a prescription on the ideas of democracy, yet how much transparency is still up in the air, and would also benefit with judicial clarification.

As mentioned, I believe that the safety of a citizen should be in the hands of their government. It may seem an antiquated realist perspective that conjures a picture of large cavalries against a foreign enemy. But this protection should also apply to things less grandiose, such as virtual security and job security whether on home soil or abroad. It is one of the things a nation should prioritize for its people. Perhaps it is the abstract nature of these particular safeties, which are not on domestic terrain and are in the intangible dominions of the internet, which make solidification hard to come by. In the pursuit of foreign business in particular, I strongly believe that necessarily providing safety to expatriates creates more burden of responsibility on governments when corporations choose to expand beyond borders. As a result, predatory investment in developing or vulnerable nations can be avoided.

On the whole, I believe that both private security firms and widespread internet activism are, and have amounted to, good things. But it is such an unknown and unparalleled battlefield that is capable of both great and evil doings. Because of this, there needs to be a call for legitimization and regulation, from national governments that (perhaps naively hoped for) pursue it without outside agenda.