Shouldn't the illustrious Beeb be asking themselves why the news media is incapable of the same thing? Maybe the reason is the same as why they and practically every other news organization fail to accurately portray technology in general, including encryption. These inaccuracies tend to bubble up to policy discussions where the media’s misrepresentations are turned into (bad) policy.
At least programming doesn't try to copy the practices from the movie. If you're in IxD there's always a few idiots who think movie interfaces are a good example of usability. No, they're a good example of what looks sleek and amazing on screen, and what is compatible with the narrative need for exposure. That rarely works out well for usability .
I can't even imagine the rage that lab technicians and forensic pathologists must have felt when shows like CSI, NCIS and Bones were popular, and their job was portrayed as all sexy quirky people using lasers and holograms.
And lawyers - the "CSI Effect[0]" has apparently made proving cases with real science more difficult.
If jurors have unrealistic expectations about the quality, reliability and nature of forensic science based on tv, then they can't make rational judgements based on its presence or its absence.
There was a famous clip of a Bollywood movie where the hacking scene includes the Windows Media Player user interface: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HyDXEik3mH8
> Jurassic Park – In the midst of a velociraptor attack, Ariana Richards sits down at a computer and says, “It’s a Unix system. I know this.” Then she somehow hacks the entire Jurassic Park security system in a matter of seconds and takes control of the automatic doors. This scene is filled with tension, but what she does is analogous to someone loading a browser on a Macbook and then saying, “It’s Safari. I know this,” and then going on to compromise someone’s Gmail account in a couple seconds.
Well if you put it like that it actually sounds somewhat plausible, since she was on that someone's computer. Most people I know leave their Gmail logged in.
I interpreted it as, she could probably recognize the directory structure in the visual tool as belonging to a Unix system, and from there guess that it responds to standard Unix commands. It would take a bit longer than is depicted, but she could probably cd into some interesting-looking directories from there and find the programs used to control the park's facilities.
I don't think that scene was about hacking. They have already rebooted the system to wipe what Nedry has done (which, on its own, is a notion that is unrealistic) then it was just waiting to be reactivated by navigating to the right subsystems.
While most of these examples are spot on, I will argue the point of the Jurassic Park Hacking scene:
The 1992 world of computers and networks was much different than our world today. The author uses the analogy of familiarity with a browser and gaining access to a gmail account. I remember 1992. I remember the systems that didn't have lock screens, and didn't have log in passwords. Couple that with a theme park's computer system that's still being built and debugged.
I think it's totally rational that a kid who's familiar with a unix filesystem and a navigator could poke around a system until she found some security scripts.
I take much more issue with the "video feed" of the Dock with the worker Nedry was talking to - and the video playback bar on the bottom of the window.
* Because almost all “hacking” is boring, and/or conceptually dense and/or non-cinematic.
* Rule of Cool.
* Because screenwriters typically have little knowledge of the subject.
* For the same reasons (the ones above) films and TV can’t portray lawyers or doctors or teenagers or police officers or drug dealers or scientists or bartenders or art thieves or Wall Street or soldiers or college students or anything else accurately.
> Because almost all “hacking” is boring, and/or conceptually dense and/or non-cinematic.
Similarly, has any show ever portrayed writing accurately?
Any kind of writing. Screenwriting. Doesn't matter. It's the same problems as you list there: The actual act of putting words in order is determinedly, obstinately non-cinematic.
It can't be unfamiliarity, given that writers are writing those scenes, so it has to be the simple fact training a camera at someone staring into space and/or working quietly is a dumb idea in a visual medium.
The activities surrounding writing can be portrayed, the brainstorming and planning sessions and maybe even some of the research, but the act itself is way too internal.
Because we're here in hacker news, we're biased to think that's the only thing screenwriters get wrong. The truth is, nearly every single profession is misrepresented by Hollywood. From doctors, to chemists, biologists, physicists, mathematicitians, psychologists, policemen, detectives, nearly every single profession looks absurd from the perspective of people who actually understand it when it's staged in a movie.
There's a reason why films about directors and movie making seem more realistic than the rest - they are the only movies designed by people who actually understand the subject.
"Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."
I actually don't know if it's amnesia. It might be something more like denial. The idea that we are surrounded by unreliable, incomplete, and misleading information is too unpleasant to contemplate, so we just push that thought out of our minds if there isn't anything concrete to suggest it is happening in the specific case we're looking at.
This sort of thing seems to happen a lot when there aren't any obvious better alternatives. Which newspaper can I subscribe to instead that actually is consistently accurate? Not knowing of one, and not wanting to stop reading the news entirely, I stay with the newspaper I already have and make the best of the experience. And part of that is letting myself assume it's accurate whenever I don't have a reason to say otherwise.
> Which newspaper can I subscribe to instead that actually is consistently accurate?
I understand you aren't actually asking this question, so this response isn't directed at you personally:
I often wonder why it rarely occurs to people that they can subscribe or consume multiple sources of information in order to arrive at a more accurate conclusion?
I also wonder if it has anything to do with poor research skills learned in high school (or maybe even college/university), in which when doing a research paper or other similar work, they only look up the subject(s) in an encyclopedia, use that as their bibliographic source, and never go any further with deeper research using other means...?
> I often wonder why it rarely occurs to people that they can subscribe or consume multiple sources of information in order to arrive at a more accurate conclusion?
[...]
> Likely, it's just laziness and apathy.
I find that 'laziness' is generally the laziest explanation for a phenomenon. Also the least charitable, which is an aspect of interpretation that I've been trying to pay more attention to.
That said, I don't disagree with you. In fact, I'm often baffled by how bad people are, in a more general sense, at exploration and search.
I feel like half the stuff I teach junior coders is simply how to search for solutions to a problem, or how to build up a collection of sources that can help with the particular domain they're working in. Or even just how valuable it is to take an hour or so to read through some library's documentation before or while using it. Not to mention how to develop heuristics to decide which library is the best one to use for a particular task.
In a world where most necessary information is at your fingertips, the skill to focus on is how to handle and filter all this information. Even just a cursory look at most people's google search queries makes it clear that there's a lot that people can learn in this regard. Or the fact that many people I know are barely aware of their mac's Spotlight feature, and instead click around through 'untitled folder (2)' to figure out which document named 'copy of <document> (2)' is the relevant one.
(Basically, aside from the more general value of 'learning how to learn' (for which Coursera offers a wonderful MOOC with the same name), I feel that 'learning how to find information' is something that most people are shockingly bad at.)
Anyways, I don't think laziness explains it. It's more that people are just not taught this as a basic skill in school, nor are they taught that this is a valuable skill. If you don't know how to find things, or how to learn things for that matter, or why this is something hugely valuable, how can you be expected to figure that out by yourself?
Let's just put it this way: as far as Hollywood is concerned computer systems are the new quicksand, and hackers are the rope that's needed to get out of it.
I hate this because it suspends my suspension of disbelief. I can only think of three instances of tv shows and films that get it right: the US version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (at least she uses a terminal emulator and ssh); The Social Network; and Mr. Robot. It's so commonly botched that I get really excited when someone gets it right. It doesn't even have to be perfect; just not laughably ridiculous.
The same reason they fail at representing the Occult. 95% of it is not flashy.
I spend a great deal of my time reading, be it new tech documents, papers, or other findings that interest me. Or I read musty old tomes, scans from Oxford library and wherever on mysticism and occultism.
Do you know how exciting it is to show someone reading for hours? Not very. No, people have very low attention spans, and can barely read a facebook post or moderately sized comment. Discussing intricacies of anything on TV is verboten. Small bites are acceptable, and even better if they have flashy and pretty graphics or effects.
So instead, dramatic "interpretations" are used, to ill effect. Insert CSI "zoom - zoom - zoom - caught them", "uber hackers" that can make blenders turn on remotely, to "evil warlocks" that kill at a glance. It's all theater, and badly done at that.
Because watching someone mess around with VIM for 17 hours of realtime while eating junk food only to scream "aha the semicolon is four spaces off" is not must see TV
I feel the article is not quite fair in its coverage of Hackers. Sure, the movie gets many things absurdly wrong, but it also depicts social engineering (calling a security guard and tricking him into telling the hacker a modem's phone number), dumpster diving in hopes of finding interesting documents and guessing passwords. These could be straight from Kevin Mitnick's memoirs, Ghost in the Wires (which came out years later). I think the movie might actually get more things right than it gets wrong.
44 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 91.2 ms ] threadEDIT: wow they even use "man in black hoodie with hood concealing face with green characters flying around like The Matrix" as the story hero image
And lawyers - the "CSI Effect[0]" has apparently made proving cases with real science more difficult.
[0]https://www.thebalance.com/csi-effect-1669447
"Professionals worry that jurors may acquit guilty defendants because forensic evidence is not presented by the prosecution at trial."
How is that bad?
Well if you put it like that it actually sounds somewhat plausible, since she was on that someone's computer. Most people I know leave their Gmail logged in.
That's not a filesystem.
The 1992 world of computers and networks was much different than our world today. The author uses the analogy of familiarity with a browser and gaining access to a gmail account. I remember 1992. I remember the systems that didn't have lock screens, and didn't have log in passwords. Couple that with a theme park's computer system that's still being built and debugged.
I think it's totally rational that a kid who's familiar with a unix filesystem and a navigator could poke around a system until she found some security scripts.
I take much more issue with the "video feed" of the Dock with the worker Nedry was talking to - and the video playback bar on the bottom of the window.
* https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/9745/
* Rule of Cool.
* Because screenwriters typically have little knowledge of the subject.
* For the same reasons (the ones above) films and TV can’t portray lawyers or doctors or teenagers or police officers or drug dealers or scientists or bartenders or art thieves or Wall Street or soldiers or college students or anything else accurately.
Similarly, has any show ever portrayed writing accurately?
Any kind of writing. Screenwriting. Doesn't matter. It's the same problems as you list there: The actual act of putting words in order is determinedly, obstinately non-cinematic.
It can't be unfamiliarity, given that writers are writing those scenes, so it has to be the simple fact training a camera at someone staring into space and/or working quietly is a dumb idea in a visual medium.
The activities surrounding writing can be portrayed, the brainstorming and planning sessions and maybe even some of the research, but the act itself is way too internal.
There's a reason why films about directors and movie making seem more realistic than the rest - they are the only movies designed by people who actually understand the subject.
"Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."
This sort of thing seems to happen a lot when there aren't any obvious better alternatives. Which newspaper can I subscribe to instead that actually is consistently accurate? Not knowing of one, and not wanting to stop reading the news entirely, I stay with the newspaper I already have and make the best of the experience. And part of that is letting myself assume it's accurate whenever I don't have a reason to say otherwise.
I understand you aren't actually asking this question, so this response isn't directed at you personally:
I often wonder why it rarely occurs to people that they can subscribe or consume multiple sources of information in order to arrive at a more accurate conclusion?
I also wonder if it has anything to do with poor research skills learned in high school (or maybe even college/university), in which when doing a research paper or other similar work, they only look up the subject(s) in an encyclopedia, use that as their bibliographic source, and never go any further with deeper research using other means...?
Likely, it's just laziness and apathy.
[...]
> Likely, it's just laziness and apathy.
I find that 'laziness' is generally the laziest explanation for a phenomenon. Also the least charitable, which is an aspect of interpretation that I've been trying to pay more attention to.
That said, I don't disagree with you. In fact, I'm often baffled by how bad people are, in a more general sense, at exploration and search.
I feel like half the stuff I teach junior coders is simply how to search for solutions to a problem, or how to build up a collection of sources that can help with the particular domain they're working in. Or even just how valuable it is to take an hour or so to read through some library's documentation before or while using it. Not to mention how to develop heuristics to decide which library is the best one to use for a particular task.
In a world where most necessary information is at your fingertips, the skill to focus on is how to handle and filter all this information. Even just a cursory look at most people's google search queries makes it clear that there's a lot that people can learn in this regard. Or the fact that many people I know are barely aware of their mac's Spotlight feature, and instead click around through 'untitled folder (2)' to figure out which document named 'copy of <document> (2)' is the relevant one.
(Basically, aside from the more general value of 'learning how to learn' (for which Coursera offers a wonderful MOOC with the same name), I feel that 'learning how to find information' is something that most people are shockingly bad at.)
Anyways, I don't think laziness explains it. It's more that people are just not taught this as a basic skill in school, nor are they taught that this is a valuable skill. If you don't know how to find things, or how to learn things for that matter, or why this is something hugely valuable, how can you be expected to figure that out by yourself?
True and it doesn't stop there. They don't even get love right.
I spend a great deal of my time reading, be it new tech documents, papers, or other findings that interest me. Or I read musty old tomes, scans from Oxford library and wherever on mysticism and occultism.
Do you know how exciting it is to show someone reading for hours? Not very. No, people have very low attention spans, and can barely read a facebook post or moderately sized comment. Discussing intricacies of anything on TV is verboten. Small bites are acceptable, and even better if they have flashy and pretty graphics or effects.
So instead, dramatic "interpretations" are used, to ill effect. Insert CSI "zoom - zoom - zoom - caught them", "uber hackers" that can make blenders turn on remotely, to "evil warlocks" that kill at a glance. It's all theater, and badly done at that.
https://twitter.com/thesizeoffun/status/893479366235230208
All those lost hours typing at a green-screen terminal qualify me to be the hero in a Hollywood movie too!
Many of them still aren't exactly what you'd call realistic though.