Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why CSI: Cyber Matters

Posted by Soulskill on from the your-computer-is-broadcasting-an-IP-address dept.

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.

17 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. ACK..PHHT by craighansen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If only it had some concept of citizen's right to privacy. Instead, it breathlessly celebrates the death of the 4th amendment.

    1. Re:ACK..PHHT by dottrap · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anybody find it suspicious that at the height of the Snowden/NSA spying revelations, NCIS brings in a sympathetic and pretty NSA agent into the main cast. (And her show's husband is played by Jamie Bamber (Battlestar Galactica), another NSA agent.)

    2. Re:ACK..PHHT by LessThanObvious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I haven't seen this specific show, but every other crime drama on TV seems to portray the cops as being able to go snatch information from just about anything they can get into, through any means, without any discussion of a warrant. These shows are training our young people that cops can do just about anything they want in the online world as long as they are chasing an alleged bad guy. Law enforcement may play pretty fast and loose in reality, but it isn't good to teach the public that it's standard procedure to hack into whatever they please and grab data from all sorts of sources that a reasonable person would consider private.

    3. Re:ACK..PHHT by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know the NCIS family of series repeatedly hacks servers illegally and deliberately avoids getting warrants to do so.

      At least the show realistically portrays US law enforcement in that way.

    4. Re:ACK..PHHT by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. I haven't seen this specific show, but every other crime drama on TV seems to portray the cops as being able to go snatch information from just about anything they can get into, through any means, without any discussion of a warrant.

      That's correct. Barring one or two exceptions, crime drama on TV also seems to portray cops as wanting to get to the bottom of murders.

      When in fact, it's quite the opposite in real life. Cops who get promoted, classify murders, as suicides, or as death by natural cause. That's the most politically expedient solution. That's the cold hard truth of our society. In San Francisco for instance, it took international pressure from the French government to reopen a case where the death of a French man was ruled as suicide despite the fact that he was stabbed repeatedly and that the knife was never found.

      Also, I know someone who works as a CSI in Florida. She said to me that CSIs are not criminal investigators, they're more like social workers. They're there to process dead bodies, not to try to inflate the official rate of murders in their jurisdiction. So forget that notion of super detectives, they're not super detectives (as most of us already know of course), but take it even a step further, they're not even allowed to be detectives since the entire bureaucracy is only incentivized to ignore murders (instead of investigating them).

      So if these TV shows inspire any young people to get into these professions, those young people are in for a very rude awakening one day.

    5. Re:ACK..PHHT by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TV is about as close to a tough moral dilemma as most people get. Remember back during the Iraq torture scandal how often comparisons were drawn to the show 24, in which the protagonist tortures a terrorist to force him to reveal the location of a bomb? Something like that, anyway. It was the go-to example for the pro-torture faction.

    6. Re:ACK..PHHT by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cyber doesn't hack servers: They simply don't mention any concept of a warrant. If they want to look up someone's phone records they quickly search their government database and pull up whatever information they need. Same for tracking a cellphone. Warrants are never even mentioned, so they don't need to resort to bypassing them. It's simply assumed that as the cyber specialist squad they are allowed access to anything computery in an instant.

      In episode one the team detects a vulnerability in a cloud-based baby-monitor and immediately shuts down the service, probably ruining the company.

    7. Re:ACK..PHHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      always wondered if production of those types of programs are at least partially funded by the government, perhaps, so that the masses get used to those concepts? it can't all be just 'literary license' and 'plot devices' concocted by the writers and directors.

    8. Re:ACK..PHHT by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's the same on UK television. There was a series called "Spooks", about MI5 (kinda like the CIA) officers. They would regularly hack any random CCTV camera that happened to be of interest to them, without any consideration for legal procedure or apparently any effort. It was just assumed they could look at anything any time they wanted to, no questions asked, because national security.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:ACK..PHHT by Translation+Error · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, you could say that going to a judge first to get permission to access the data is... unwarranted.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  2. It gives a false view by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:It gives a false view by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I saw a real live astronaut say that Star Trek was his inspiration -- surely it was not the technical accuracy that inspired him.

      I grew up in the 60's, loved star trek and I dream of Genie. The "adult" backdrop was the Moon race, portrayed as scientific but driven by the fear sputnik induced in the pentagon. Virtually every boy in my school wanted to be an astronaut even though we knew there was no such thing as an Aussie astronaut at the time.

      Humans are inspired by human stories, "magic" is just a plot device. To enjoy fiction such as Dr Who or CSI you have to "suspend belief", often that is not possible if you are expert in a specific kind of "magic"; eg "infinite zoom" which was ok in the 80's has now become a bad cliché because the general population are more familiar with pixilation. The problem starts when popular actors/storytellers start conflating their fiction with reality to drum up business (eg: Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code).

      If the storyteller offers details about the magic it's important to me that the details are correct (eg: Big Bang Theory), a few correct details makes the magic much harder to reject. For example has Dr Who ever explained how the magic wand (sonic screwdriver) works? Do we need an explanation to enjoy the show?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  3. Idiotic Nonsense by Arcady13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Idiotic Nonsense by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've noticed that every single IP address has at least one segment >255. Perhaps it's a legal thing - their lawyers tell them not to show any address that might be in use by a real entity, and using invalid IPs is their equivilent of a 555 area code?

      CSI and spinoffs all have the forensics team work as a one-department law enforcement squad. They go to the scene, interview the suspects, draw conclusions, and eventually chase down and arrest the perpetrator. It's just a storytelling constraint: It would be a lot less exciting if the CSI's job were more realistic. They go to a scene, spend a few hours poking around, then write up a report and hand it over to the detective? Who wants to watch that? It's a much better story if you have a small group of core characters who are intimately involved in the case from start to end.

  4. Borderline apologist alert by byrdfl3w · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  5. Dark day indeed by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. CSI: Cyber the drinking game by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.