lauren%LBL-CSAM@vortex.UUCP (06/25/83)
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Ahem. A few final comments. I sincerely hope that this will be my last submission on this topic for the time being. I'll be away from the net for a few days anyway, so any flamers will have to wait until I get back if they expect me to reply! --- The Film ======== First of all, where did I say that I never saw the film? What I said was that I had been upset about the film since my friend brought home the first details from a studio screening well before the film's public release. This was weeks before I had a chance to get out and see the beastie myself. Unfortunately, it turned out that my friend's details were all accurate. Nowhere did I state that I didn't see the film itself. The Phones ========== My original comment on this subject was "this is 1983, not 1966". It is generally well known that ground start techniques of various sorts worked (at one time) with many payphones. However, the telcos were aware of the problem and began the handset gluing and "wrenching" operations when the problem became serious enough to be considered a significant revenue loss. During this same period, internal mouthpiece "shields" and some other devices began to be used to avoid these problems. The film implies that the technique shown is still generally usable (and the director implied that the telcos were ignorant of the techniques until his film was released). These are both untrue concepts. I suppose there still are some unprotected payphones out in the REAL hinterland somewhere, but the bottom line remains the same: the film is highly misleading. I might add that such techniques, alone, even with a cooperating payphone, would be useful for local calls only (a lot of good that'll do out in the middle of nowhere!) Further discussion on this topic should probably be directed off of SF-LOVERS and on to TELECOM (which has recently returned to life, by the way...) The Reality =========== Few persons who have ever been involved in computer security design (including myself, of course) would claim that any given system is 100% secure from attack. Even many military systems are vulnerable to attack FROM THE INSIDE, as some studies have shown. (By "from the inside", I mean an attack by personnel who have direct access to the system, or who are involved in the design and setup of such systems.) This does not change the fact that a scenario such as that presented by "Wargames" is NOT realistic, even disregarding the typical "twisting" of computer technology that the film presents -- we've gotten used to that over the years, of course. The real problem is that the average person who is not a technically informed person in the computer field cannot be assumed to be capable of understanding the distinctions between what might seem "plausible" and what is "real". The sorts of superficial stories published by newspapers and spouted by the network news on these topics only add to the confusion, since they attempt to present a highly complex topic in a manner understandable by the layman in a one column article (or a two minute television segment), and are uniformly abysmal in their results. False alerts, test penetrations of military computer systems by coordinated military teams, and similar events are a reality, and, quite possibly, the "public" should be made more aware of the problems involved. However, films like "Wargames", which attempt to combine "plausible" (but not realistic) situations with such "bankable" and "up-to-date" concepts as home computers, dialup lines, "whiz kids", and video games, do a terrible dis-service to all of us who are attempting to advance the field of computer science. For what the average viewer of "Wargames" walks away with is one simple concept, "Computers are Bad." We've been fighting this sort of attitude for years, and it isn't clear that the spread of this technology has really improved "the public's" view or level of information on the matter. (I note, for example, that the press tends to equate children who spend lots of time PLAYING video games with future computer scientists. Have you been inside a video arcade lately? Blechhhh!) Enough. I still get cold shivers when I watch "Failsafe", since I know that the scenario presented was/is damned close to a possible reality. "Failsafe" presented its anti-arms-race message in an effective and reasonable manner, and was intelligent and dramatic. Unfortunately, today's film market is oriented toward our current "bubblegum" culture, and toward children (and adults) with bubblegum for brains. Truly a shame, but typical. The End ======= --Lauren--
speaker.umcp-cs%UDel-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (06/29/83)
From: Speaker-To-Animals <speaker.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay> So instead of flaming to each other, why not flame at the mass media and clue them in. - Speaker Where did the reviewers get their Phds in AI? AMWAY?