????一年前，當索尼電影公司的員工打開電腦時，出現在他們眼前的是皺著眉頭的骷髏頭，伴隨著沖鋒槍掃射的聲音。這宣告著該公司的IT系統被黑。網絡黑客對這家電影公司聲勢浩大的入侵，就這樣拉開了序幕。

????本周三，最新一部詹姆斯·邦德電影在位于索尼紐約總部第七層樓的影院提前試映。最先出現在大屏幕上的，是散落滿地的人骨——這是墨西哥城亡靈節的儀式——然后響起刺客用半自動步槍射擊的聲音。索尼制作的《幽靈黨》，也就是007系列電影的第24部，就這樣拉開了序幕。

????也許有人會誤認為，這部007電影中的骷髏和子彈與索尼被黑事件如此相似，其中一定別有深意。然而實際上，遭到黑客泄露的劇本已經包含這些情節，這也許真的純屬巧合。

????當時，索尼電影公司的IT員工沒有能夠及時切斷電源，黑客的惡意軟件從一臺機器跳到另一臺機器，殃及到整個公司，并傳到其他大洲，橫掃索尼一半的全球網絡。公司6,797臺個人電腦中的3,262臺、1,555臺服務器中的837臺的數據被全部清除。為了確保被清除的數據無法恢復，攻擊者們甚至還加了一點額外的毒藥：一種特殊的刪除算法，用7種方式覆蓋原先的數據。這種算法啟動后，惡意代碼還摧毀了計算機的啟動程序，致其“腦死亡”。惡意軟件啟動后不到一個小時，索尼影業公司就被打回了磁帶錄像機的時代。公司退化到了使用傳真機，在留言板上發布消息，用紙質支票給7,000名雇員發錢。

????《007幽靈黨》這部電影確實探討了網絡安全、數據隱私和政府職權等問題。如果你認為這些劇情是在呼應英國正在審查的立法提案，那也情有可原。例如，一份正在英國議會審議的法律草案，建議授予情報機構和執法機關人員在國內全面監聽的權力。對于任何看過這部電影的人來說，這一切聽起來可能就十分耳熟了。

????請放心，我不會劇透，但我要重申許多憤怒的網絡安全專家的建議：在人們的私人通訊設備中開個后門，是個很糟糕的舉動。在所謂的好人利用這些后門的同時，壞人一樣也會設法利用。

????回到《幽靈黨》這部電影，它確實非常好看，盡管劇情還有改善的空間。故事顯得有點雜亂脫節，人物不斷從一個國家跳轉到另一個國家，進行著令人目眩的國際旅行。編劇試圖把故事與丹尼爾·克雷格扮演的邦德系列作品聯系起來，結果卻讓主線敘述亂作一團。不過007系列的關鍵元素同以往一樣精彩——飆車追逐、飛機對決、劇烈爆炸、美人誘惑，沒錯，還有馬丁尼酒。

????我的結論是：這部電影讓我震撼，但沒有打動我，至少和《007大破天幕殺機》相比是這樣。

????（財富中文網）

????譯者：嚴匡正

????審校：任文科

????I like the film like the spy likes his martinis.

????When Sony Pictures employees booted up their computers a year ago, scowling skulls and the audio-recorded ratatatat of submachine gun fire announced that their IT systems had been gutted. So unfolded the movie studio’s colossal hacking. (Read Fortune’s epic three-part investigation into that fiasco here, here, and here.)

????When the screen lit up inside the seventh floor theater of Sony’s SNE -1.06% New York headquarters on Wednesday night for an advance viewing of the latest James Bond adventure, the scene revealed a skeleton-scattered landscape—a raucous Día de Muertos fiesta in Mexico City—followed, eventually, by the pewpewpew of an assassin’s semi-automatic rifle. So opened Sony-made Spectre, the twenty-fourth installment of the secret agent series.

????Perhaps one would be mistaken to read too much into the coincidental display of bones and bullets in Sony’s digital ransacking and the Bond movie’s prelude. Hackers had leaked a version of the script already containing these plot points in the course of their vandalism. So the stagecraft might just be a harmonious accident.

????The film does grapple, however, with questions of cybersecurity, data privacy, and government authority. One would not be mistaken then, in reading the story as a serendipitous commentary on very real legislative initiatives under review in the United Kingdom at this very moment. A draft bill wending its way through the parliament, for instance, proposes to grant intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials sweeping surveillance powers within the country. To anyone who sees the film, this may sound familiar.

????Rest assured, I won’t spoil what happens in the spy’s fictional universe, but I will reiterate the exasperated advice of many a cybersecurity expert: Building backdoors into people’s private communications is a bad practice. Villains will find ways to exploit this access just as much as the supposed good guys can. (Side note: if you’re looking to read more on proposed cybersecurity laws, keep an eye out for the next issue of Fortune magazine, where I plan to have the download on a U.S. cybersecurity bill called CISA that recently passed in the Senate.)

????To return to Spectre, the film is exceptionally entertaining, though the plot leaves something to be desired. The story often feels disjointed—leaping from country to country on a dizzying world tour. An attempt on the part of the screenwriters to tie the narrative strings together on the Daniel Craig-acted Bond series resembles a knotty threadbare tangle. But the glamorous aspects of “007” espionage are as enthralling as ever—the car chases, the helicopter fights, the explosions, the seduction, and yes, the martinis.

????My review can be summarized thusly: I was shaken, not stirred. (At least in comparison to Skyfall.)