Slashdot Mirror
Why CSI: Cyber Matters
New submitter hypercard writes: CSI: Cyber has been the butt of many jokes in the infosec community since its inception. But in addition to facilitating lots of cyber bingo events and live tweets to call out technical errors, the show has real value in bringing awareness about infosec issues to the masses. Members of the Army Cyber Institute at West Point discuss the upside of CSI: Cyber in an article in the Cyber Defense Review. "Children all over the country have been inspired to be law enforcement agents by shows like Criminal Minds, NCIS, Bones, and CSI." One of CSI: Cyber's cast members, Shad Moss, has more followers than the entire top one thousand information security professionals on Twitter.
If only it had some concept of citizen's right to privacy. Instead, it breathlessly celebrates the death of the 4th amendment.
Because law enforcement needs a show to reveal its dark side.
It gives a false view of what's possible, what's plausible, how things work, etc. In other words, it sucks.
That's no better than kids saying they want to be Superman or a Ninja Turtle because they saw it on TV.
And the acting ... god-awful.
But what can you expect from scripts that were written by former employees of the National Enquirer.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
and they do. CSI.
so those of us suffering from bulimia nervosa don't need to stick our finger down our throat?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You're telling me some famous actor is more popular than some random security professionals?
"Shad Moss, has more followers than the entire top one thousand information security professionals "
So this translates into value how? If you assume that a TV show is more popular than security researchers then you're absolutely correct. In terms of "does this make our future technology users more safe?" then I'd say there's no clear connection. The more apt question, are the people who watch this show in industries where ciber security makes a difference? I suppose if it prevents a little bit of fraud for the ignorant then great, but I've found that the greatest security issues we've ever had has always been between the ears (pros and laymen alike).
Bye!
It also has the potential to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) and scare the masses, and our lawmakers,
the difference is that here, it's all warranted.
into reactions that would be counterproductive.
counterproductive to whom?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
One of CSI: Cyber's cast members, Shad Moss, has more followers than the entire top one thousand information security professionals on Twitter.
Headline: Actor wins popularity contest over nerds in a landslide!
Up next: Water... is it still wet? We find out, live!
The sheeple need a good thrashing with a book, not more vapid fantasy pseudo-science.
Sorry, there is no upside to typing the '?' (or whatever it was) over and over again until a photo-realistic avatar gets so confused that it glitches out and the skin flies off revealing the wireframe beneath.
If we're teaching kids that that is all it takes to be a cyber-cop, we're going to end up with some super shitty cyber cops.
Arquette isn't too bad but her supporting cast, my word they've scraped the bottom of the barrel.
MacNicol - weirdo from Ally McBeal
Van Der Beek - loser from Apartment 23
Luke Perry - wrinkly old geezer from 90210
If you had to assemble a line up of washed up 90s fogeys, this'd be it.
A TV star has more followers than a tech grunt. What a shock.
Next thing you know, someone will purport surprise that a music or movie star is more popular than someone who works for a living.
*LOL*
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
race to the bottom...which series is more idiotic?
"Children all over the country have been inspired to be law enforcement agents"
Great. Because if there is one thing this country needs, it's more law enforcement.
Is that counting followers of InfoSec Taylor Swift? @SwiftOnSecurity
Edith Keeler Must Die
This CSI show is so awful that it is difficult to make a short list of what is wrong with it. First of all, there is no "CSI" in the show, even though it is named CSI: Cyber. They aren't doing crime scene investigation. They are doing evidence forensics on technology recovered by actual CSI people. But they show them visiting crime scenes and doing other activities that a forensic specialist would never do. I guess this isn't any worse than the instant DNA tests and one day court cases we see on other shows, but who needs inaccurate methods on a show about methods?
It is clear that they have no technical advisers, or if they do, they are incompetent. There are errors that exist that have no reason to exist. Sometimes you have to take shortcuts to make a plot work or something, but they insert ridiculous dialog and ideas when they don't have any reason to do so.
This show really isn't any worse or better than the Scorpion show, which for some reason puts the name of itself in a close tag. When the show's title is an error in itself, how much can you hope for?
"Members of the Army Cyber Institute at West Point discuss.."
Oh, that's just great. Let us all watch as the beast lovingly examines it's own belly.
CSI: Cyber is simply a particularly egregious slice of NSA damage-control propaganda.
If CSI is truly encouraging the next generation of law enforcement it foretells a dark future for our already shaky justice system. Most of the "science" on that show is garbage and their wholesale violation of civil liberties make even today's overreaching law enforcement officials salivate. We already have enough people with limited/no scientific background misusing things like polygraphs, fingerprint, DNA, blood spatter and other methods which have no or far less usefulness than is currently being heaped upon them. Some good old investigate police work and scientifically grounded evidence would go a long way towards putting "to protect and serve" back in the profession.
Well, smoss have 3 million followers, while SwiftOnSecurity has beats me when I Googled that Twitter handle the link to the profile brought be to a Twitter login page and I'm not signing up for Twitter just to make that comparison. But I'm guessing it's less than 3 million.
Anytime someone holds up a device and is able to determine the bugs in its source code by visually inspecting the device, take a shot.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
I'll just leave this here. https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Who's going to see it if it's on network TV?
When I turned on CBS last night to watch the NCAA basketball I was amazed by the number of shows they pitched during the game that I've heard of - CSI:Cyber included. You really think it's hitting a young impressionable audience?
The whole premise is flawed, as is TFA's summary. I guess it matters if you want to brainwash people, teach irresponsible behavior, and attempt to falsely glamorize my chosen profession. The fix won't happen because the brainwashing goes way beyond this one issue.
To fix it? The fourth amendment should be taught with this, regulations that white hat cyber experts must follow should be shown, and the mundane tasks involved in security should be shown as well.
SwiftOnSecurity has 68k. (More than explanoit's 2.5k and less than smoss's 3M.)
That's a little unfair, though. Smoss has some notoriety outside of being on CSI Cyber.
i remember when the first csi's came out there was a rush of kids looking for csi programs at colleges. i was enrolled as a chem eng tech, we just laughed, and as a former comm sci major ( no i didnt graduate, lol), ill laugh all the same when anyone actually thinks tv is a reflection off the real world. you ever dig through pcap files, not as glorious as it sounds.
Children all over the country have been inspired to be law enforcement agents by shows like Criminal Minds, NCIS, Bones, and CSI.
TV shows and movies are the worst place to get inspired about tech - especially with regard to a life/career choice.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
She won an Oscar?????
" One of CSI: Cyber's cast members, Shad Moss, has more followers than the entire top one thousand information security professionals on Twitter."
that is an argument? really? c'mon, every popstar has a huge number of followers, more than every tech savvy, that doesn't mean anything, why we are still using the big number argument
One of CSI: Cyber's cast members, Shad Moss, has more followers than the entire top one thousand information security professionals on Twitter. So the solution to this is a badly made show that only dilutes the waters around cyber security? No. Its not. The truth is people are not going to get it. This isn't saying they are stupid. This is saying that its as beyond them as making a beef wellington and risotto to Chef Gordon Ramsey's expectations is. We need less of 'Hacking the Gibson' CSI style and more of John Oliver actually interviewing Edward Snowden and getting him to explain the patriot act by using genitalia pictures posted to Snapchat via Iphones.
on twitter than all of the bla bla bla combined.
Yeah, that's something to put in a resume'...
Using twitter, wickipedia, facebook as a source, or feather in your
cap...useless...
W-SJW: All social justice warriors, all the time!
If you're going to make a serious show (or film) that very prominently features technology or science (or for that matter medicine, or even law enforcement or government, among other things), you _really_ need to hire tech consultants who are actually sharp and have recent real-world experience in the industry. Then (and this is the hard part) you need to give them veto power, such that they can say "No, that's completely incorrect terminology, fix it" or "No, you can't do that, it's not even plausible and it requires way too great a suspension of disbelief for anyone with more than half a brain."
Ideally, what you'd have would be a collaboration between talented screen writers with a technical background and skilled technical folks with some screenwriting skills. That combination should be able to turn out entertaining, suspenseful, believable, and likely even insightful stores that get the tech right, or at least right-enough (providing for some new developments or very plausible but just not yet fully baked ideas, or the results of having vast resources, etc).
Either that or just give up and make it Sci-Fi and explain things via future setting, alternate reality,earthshaking discovery, or alien technology, etc.
What I'd rather talk about is the AI's and other concepts in Person of Interest. Which does a good job to show how deeply politicians and other public servants think about their job. And there is no doubt about what they do is totally illegal - but its fun to watch compared to this "CSI" show.
I've watched the first 4 shows of this "CSI" show. After watching it I am curious to know if FBI agents really do stop every 5 minutes to strawman the alleged perp and justify some pretty illegal actions on their behalf. Atleast they have not written in a 'stingray' story line yet that I know of.
But really, why watch these kinds of shows which make law enforcement look "good". In reality 2 FBI CSI's were charged with stealing bitcoins from Silkroad.
Programs like this are designed to cause paranoia and stoke anti-hacker prejudice in the general non-techy population.
It is more than just another lame cable TV show, the tech community needs to vocally oppose this sort of slander & brainwashing.
Make no mistake, 'cyberwar' is real - however it is not what is being sold to us by the press. Cyberwar is the military-corporate assault against a free & open internet.
To enjoy fiction such as Dr Who or CSI you have to "suspend belief"
The expression you're looking for is "suspend disbelief." It means that you know that what's going on isn't real, but you go along with it anyway.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If you have "Why [something overgeneralized and controversial] matters" in your title that's it. Not clicking. Slashdot are you too fucking old and stupid to realize "Why [insert whatever] matters" is STANDARD CLICKBAIT. CNN has imploded so much from being titan of news they can't stop themselves from posting "WHY [insert whatever] MATTERS" every single day. Why do they most this? Because CNN ITSELF doesn't matter anymore. But something else still matters so they just NEED to be the one to say it. Even if it fucking doesn't it and the article is shit. Well guess what? YOU HAVE NO REACHED THAT LOW. CONGRATU FUCKING LATIONS!!!!!
Call yourself a "hacker", lose your fourth amendment rights... in court.
This is a contribution from the "cybersec community", improving all our lives.
Among those who consume this nonsense, all it promotes is false beliefs about the criminal justice system and forensic science. Then they get on a jury and make the prosecutor's job even harder.
Backtrace, reposition satellite...
Puke.
On the value of twitter followers...
(1) First, if you have that many people following you, and you can't lose the majority of them, then if you can't lose such a big tail, how am I to take you seriously about knowing about security?
(2) Sure, and that's his only twitter account. But if you add up all the followers Infosec Taylor Swift has, on all her accounts, the numbers are boggling!
That is all.
CSI: Cyber's flickering scene transitions, with sound, are the most annoying thing on television, possibly ever. Get rid of this stupid effect, please.
From what I've seen so far (and I can't unsee it now, thanks) I think it's going to get pretty monotonous (plot wise, the acting is already there -- I'm looking at you... Dawson.) Find tech device, scroll quickly through color-coded binary dump, extract an IP address, trace address, bust down door... rinse, lather, repeat...
It isn't the actors themselves that's the problem, Patricia Arquette is fantastic when given good, dark material to work with...True Romance, Lost Highway, Bringing out the Dead. But this is just awful, every episode so far is just a re-hash of "we gotta stay determined, the bad guys are bad, trust your team" and it all works out by the end of the hour. Little cookie-cutter sized bits of drama, that's just not her. The rest of the crew...the upright white male #2 in command and the nerdy back team...are just forgettable.
Maybe that's just the CSI/NCIS formula (I like the New Orleans one though, Bakula and his 2 sidekicks work great together), but it's sputtering here.
Last night's NCIS repeatedly mentioned the ATF's infamous Fast & Furious operation. That doesn't fit with your statement that the show "has always used an 'ends justify the means' attitude".
I wish they would work a little harder to get the geek things right. It is fiction, and may be believable by the masses, but still it needs to be closer to reality. Overall NCIS is better than the CSI series in acting, and believability. But there are plenty of bad tech in both. Just be thankful it isn't another Scorpion.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Thanks, have a nice day :)
http://www.educa.net/curso/cur...