I'm a big fan of the TV series NCIS. But sometimes it really makes me laugh.

For those that don't know, the series follows the exploits of a 
fictional team working for the US Navel Criminal Investigative Service. 
Considering it's a show about people who investigate murders and other 
violent crimes, it's actually surprisingly humorous. Naturally every 
investigation is different, and the guy who did it is never, ever who 
you think it was.

The characters are pretty much what you'd expect:

- There's the team leader, the intense, silent authority figure that 
everybody both fears and deeply respects. He has a strong sense of moral 
justice and can be guaranteed to always do what's right, regardless of 
what the rule book says. He can read people like a book, he knows how to 
make people talk, and he always figures it out before everybody else 
does. Being an older guy, he is completely inept with any technology 
more modern than a telephone.

- There's the wildcard. The smug, annoying, arrogant self-important 
jerk. Always wisecracking, always quoting obscure movie references. He 
thinks he is The Big, Mr Big, The Cool Guy. And the ladies are always 
all over him - as he constantly reminds everybody, every three seconds. 
In short, he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And yet, everybody 
really likes him, for no defined reason.

- There's the obligatory computer nerd. He can crack any cipher, and 
hack any computer system. (Unless it doesn't suit the script writer for 
today's episode.) Naturally, the guy is a high-calibre wimp. Oh, he will 
tackle people to the ground. But somehow he manages to make even that 
look wimpy. And he's really easy to intimidate. (Although, there was 
that one episode... nevermind.)

- There's the Israeli girl on loan from Mossad. She's very beautiful 
(but not stereotypically so), absurdly dangerous in close combat, and 
fiercely loyal. Highly intelligent, exquisitely skilled in observation 
and deception. In her country, when a suspect is interviewed, the 
interview does not always end with the suspect still alive. (Apparently 
that's illegal somehow in America.) She speaks a dozen languages, yet 
seems oddly unfamiliar with American customs. Stereotypically, she is 
forever getting various figures of speech wrong. ("Does a bear sit in 
the woods?")

- The medical examiner, an old wise man with a degree in psychology and 
a stereotypical English accent. He talks to the dead people he dissects, 
and has a strong tendency to conclude almost every observation with 
"...you know, this reminds me of my days at XYZ when a rather unusual 
event occurred. Yes, it was -" Uh, dude, this case??

- The ME's enthusiastic, bright, but inexperienced assistant.

- The forensic scientist and ballistics expert. She's a goth. She sleeps 
in a coffin and struts around a lab wearing the most ridiculous outfits 
under her lab coat. Obviously, she's brilliant at her job. She's also a 
big-time computer nerd, and apparently cannot function correctly without 
a constant supply of a mysterious substance known as "Caf-Pow".

If you look at that list for more than a few seconds, it ought to be 
obvious that all of these people are /highly/ unsuitable for working at 
NCIS. I don't care how much of a forensics genius you are, if you dress 
like something out of a comic book and are prone to highly impulsive 
behaviour, you wouldn't be hired to work in a criminal laboratory. And 
if you disregard the rules every time you think justice isn't being done 
right, you won't be in your job very long, much less the leader of an 
investigation team.

Throughout the series, the team leader also has various highly 
implausible alliances and confrontations with the Director of NCIS (a 
post that has been filled by several actors to date), the Secretary of 
the Navy, and various shadowy FBI figures.

So, this is fiction, right? But it's entertaining fiction.

Sometimes I have to wonder though... Who is their scientific advisor? 
And do they know what they're talking about?

A few specific tips:

- CCTV footage does *not* look exactly the same as studio camera footage 
but with a bit of extra static added in post-production. It looks grainy 
and unrecognisable, and it's usually black and white. :-P

- You *cannot* take CCTV footage, enlarge it 20x, "run an imagine 
enhancement algorithm" and then read a car numberplate from 300 yards. 
It doesn't work like that. (Amusingly, this trick only works when it 
furthers the plot. When the script writers don't want the killer to be 
found yet, mysteriously the picture can't quite be enhanced enough to be 
readable...)

- Examining a secret hidden radio transmitter does *not* allow you to 
"triangulate" where the receiver is. It also does *not* matter whether 
the transmitter is active or not while you do this. Having multiple such 
transmitters also does *not* help.

- You do *not* need two independent Internet data streams directed at 
the same destination to "triangulate" where that destination is.

- IP addresses are generally *not* "registered" to individual human 
beings in the same way that telephone numbers are. Generally they are 
just registered to your ISP (for home customers) or your employer (if 
you're doing this from your place of work).

- If an attacker is "marking their signal by bouncing it off proxy 
servers all over the world", the geographic locations of those servers 
do not magically pop up on a world map when you try to "backtrace the 
signal".

- A pillow is not the same as a gun silencer.

- Even silenced guns are still PRETTY DAMNED LOUD.

- There is no such thing as "a steganography detection algorithm". 
That's kind of the entire *point* of steganography; you can't detect it.

- "DAMN! The files are password-protected. Hmm... I know! Password 
cracker!" This is *not* a brilliant logical deduction. This is basic 
standard operating procedure for any computer forensics department. They 
do this stuff every single day, for goodness' sake!

- If you "upload the firmware" from a device onto your computer, it 
*canoot* infect your computer with a virus that secretly steals your 
data or modifies computer evidence. You see, a virus doesn't *do* 
anything - anything at all - unless you actually *run* it. Any 
half-competent computer forensics expert wouldn't make such a mistake. 
Plus the "firmware" on a device is usually not runnable on a desktop PC 
in the first place. (Not that this prevents hiding a PC virus somewhere 
inside the firmware image...)

Also, something bothers me: I'm PRETTY SURE that if a suspect refuses to 
give you a DNA sample, then you CANNOT simply offer them a drink, and 
then lift their fingerprints and DNA from the glass afterwards. It 
strikes me that there must be some kind of LAW against that kind of 
thing. (Otherwise why would you even need consent in the first place?)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> - You *cannot* take CCTV footage, enlarge it 20x, "run an imagine 
> enhancement algorithm" and then read a car numberplate from 300 yards. 
> It doesn't work like that.

  Actually it's not *that* far-fetched. When one understands the basics of
image manipulation and computers, it's intuitive to think that image data
that's so noisy or blurry is so destroyed that no useful information can be
retrieved from it. However, in many cases the information isn't *completely*
destroyed and there are very clever heuristic algorithms to try to guess
what the information was. This is especially true if you have video footage
instead of one single still image (because the combined information of
video footate can amount to a significant amount of the original information;
noise averages out, and any kind of movement will give sub-pixel-sized pieces
of information which can be used for interpolation; even a very low-resolution
video can give surprising amounts of information when you take into account
movement).

> - IP addresses are generally *not* "registered" to individual human 
> beings in the same way that telephone numbers are. Generally they are 
> just registered to your ISP (for home customers) or your employer (if 
> you're doing this from your place of work).

  The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at any
given moment, and they usually have in record the home address of their
clients. While the computer might not be at this home address, it's most
often so. Thus *in theory* it could be possible to locate any individual
by IP address (even if it's behind a NAT), assuming you also hack into the
ISP's client database to get the home address.

  (In many countries that would be illegal, though, at least without a
court order.)

> - If an attacker is "marking their signal by bouncing it off proxy 
> servers all over the world", the geographic locations of those servers 
> do not magically pop up on a world map when you try to "backtrace the 
> signal".

  Actually IP addresses can be mostly mapped on a world map. That's how
they track eg. internet traffic amounts per country. (This is especially true
if the proxy servers are owned by ISPs, as their locations are known, and
IP addresses can be attributed to ISPs because that's public information.)

  Of course *showing* such a map on the fly is just for the viewers.

> - There is no such thing as "a steganography detection algorithm". 
> That's kind of the entire *point* of steganography; you can't detect it.

  I wouldn't claim that without some actual references.

> - If you "upload the firmware" from a device onto your computer, it 
> *canoot* infect your computer with a virus that secretly steals your 
> data or modifies computer evidence. You see, a virus doesn't *do* 
> anything - anything at all - unless you actually *run* it. Any 
> half-competent computer forensics expert wouldn't make such a mistake. 

  So-called zero-day exploits can sometimes surprise even the best
experts (which is why they are extremely valuable in the cracker community),
and there have been cases where a buggy computer can be made to execute
code from the outside (or, at the very least, there have been cases that a
computer could be made to crash by just sending it certain IP packets).

> Also, something bothers me: I'm PRETTY SURE that if a suspect refuses to 
> give you a DNA sample, then you CANNOT simply offer them a drink, and 
> then lift their fingerprints and DNA from the glass afterwards. It 
> strikes me that there must be some kind of LAW against that kind of 
> thing. (Otherwise why would you even need consent in the first place?)

  The DNA obtained that way cannot be used as evidence, but it can rule
out or confirm a suspect, so that further investigation can be directed
better. But I don't know if even doing that is legal.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> - You *cannot* take CCTV footage, enlarge it 20x, "run an imagine
>> enhancement algorithm" and then read a car numberplate from 300 yards.
>> It doesn't work like that.
>
>    Actually it's not *that* far-fetched. When one understands the basics of
> image manipulation and computers, it's intuitive to think that image data
> that's so noisy or blurry is so destroyed that no useful information can be
> retrieved from it. However, in many cases the information isn't *completely*
> destroyed and there are very clever heuristic algorithms to try to guess
> what the information was.

Especially as in the example mentioned, car number plates, you know the 
font and size characters that are used.  Even with a very low resolution 
image (I'm talking just a few pixels for each character) you can often 
make a very good guess what the original letters were.  Given multiple 
frames, each with random noise and/or slightly different positions you 
are going to home in on one set of characters that is most likely.  That 
would probably seem impossible to most humans.

Post a reply to this message

>> - You *cannot* take CCTV footage, enlarge it 20x, "run an imagine
>> enhancement algorithm" and then read a car numberplate from 300 yards.
>> It doesn't work like that.
>
>    Actually it's not *that* far-fetched.
> This is especially true if you have video footage
> instead of one single still image

I doubt it's ever as easy as just clicking a button and the computer 
flashing a few boxes up and then showing you the pristine, original image.

>> - IP addresses are generally *not* "registered" to individual human
>> beings in the same way that telephone numbers are.
>
>    The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at any
> given moment

Really? That's news to me.

> Thus *in theory* it could be possible to locate any individual
> by IP address (even if it's behind a NAT), assuming you also hack into the
> ISP's client database to get the home address.
>
>    (In many countries that would be illegal, though, at least without a
> court order.)

Not sure if or how this changes when you're in the military or 
investigating a murder.

>> - If an attacker is "marking their signal by bouncing it off proxy
>> servers all over the world"

Damn. I meant "masking". >_<

>> the geographic locations of those servers
>> do not magically pop up on a world map when you try to "backtrace the
>> signal".
>
>    Actually IP addresses can be mostly mapped on a world map.

Probably. But if you can just *follow* the signal from proxy to proxy 
automatically like that, it's not really "masking" very much, is it?

>    Of course *showing* such a map on the fly is just for the viewers.

Yeah, clearly. ;-)

It's even more amusing when they do this with bank wire transactions... 
What, so all the banks across the globe allow the US Navy to see their 
transaction lists now?

>> - There is no such thing as "a steganography detection algorithm".
>> That's kind of the entire *point* of steganography; you can't detect it.
>
>    I wouldn't claim that without some actual references.

The *ideal* is for steganographically hidden data to be undetectable 
unless you know where it's hidden. How well actual real-world system 
approach that ideal? I couldn't say. It's not my field of expertise.

>> - If you "upload the firmware" from a device onto your computer, it
>> *canoot* infect your computer with a virus that secretly steals your
>> data or modifies computer evidence. You see, a virus doesn't *do*
>> anything - anything at all - unless you actually *run* it. Any
>> half-competent computer forensics expert wouldn't make such a mistake.
>
>    So-called zero-day exploits can sometimes surprise even the best
> experts (which is why they are extremely valuable in the cracker community),
> and there have been cases where a buggy computer can be made to execute
> code from the outside (or, at the very least, there have been cases that a
> computer could be made to crash by just sending it certain IP packets).

I'd imagine a computer forensics lab would be more prepared than most to 
deal with the possibility of viral threats.

Now, certain software has security flaws that allow arbitrary code 
execution. But as I understand it, these tend to be /extremely/ specific 
to the particular software you're using and the exact point-release in 
question. It's *very* improbable that an outside adversary would know 
precisely what software your forensics lab runs.

>> Also, something bothers me: I'm PRETTY SURE that if a suspect refuses to
>> give you a DNA sample, then you CANNOT simply offer them a drink, and
>> then lift their fingerprints and DNA from the glass afterwards. It
>> strikes me that there must be some kind of LAW against that kind of
>> thing. (Otherwise why would you even need consent in the first place?)
>
>    The DNA obtained that way cannot be used as evidence, but it can rule
> out or confirm a suspect, so that further investigation can be directed
> better. But I don't know if even doing that is legal.

NCIS seem to use it to force confessions out of people. Guy sits there 
in the chair, smirking "you can't prove anything". Other guy shows him 
an evidence bag with the glass in it, and the DNA report from the lab. 
(I'm pretty sure those /don't/ actually have "100% positive match" 
stamped on them in red letters IRL...) And the guy breaks down. "OK, I 
did it! The guy deserved it anyway! Don't bust me, man! I did it for my 
kids..." They take him to jail. (Because, let's face it, it isn't like 
these cases go to *trial* or anything...)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Especially as in the example mentioned, car number plates, you know the 
> font and size characters that are used.

  That's certainly true. The algorithm doesn't even have to guess what
the original shape was, it only has to compare the image (after correcting
for perspective) against the known font and estimate the closest match.
It probably helps if the image is first filtered to remove as much
extraneous noise as possible, and any extra information from additional
frames added.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >    The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at any
> > given moment

> Really? That's news to me.

  And exactly how would an ISP charge for bandwidth usage if it has no
idea which client is behind which IP address?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/04/2012 01:23 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>     The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at any
>>> given moment
>
>> Really? That's news to me.
>
>    And exactly how would an ISP charge for bandwidth usage if it has no
> idea which client is behind which IP address?

It's news to me that any ISPs *do* charge by bandwidth usage...

Post a reply to this message

On 27/04/2012 1:31 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 27/04/2012 01:23 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at any
>>>> given moment
>>
>>> Really? That's news to me.
>>
>> And exactly how would an ISP charge for bandwidth usage if it has no
>> idea which client is behind which IP address?
>
> It's news to me that any ISPs *do* charge by bandwidth usage...

Boggle! Boggle!

They often have a cap where anything above it is charged at a high rate 
in addition to your basic charge.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> It's *very* improbable that an outside adversary would know
> precisely what software your forensics lab runs.

Actually, if they were wanting to attack you they would quite likely 
know precisely what software was running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Post a reply to this message

>>>> The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at any
>>>> given moment
>>
>>> Really? That's news to me.
>>
>> And exactly how would an ISP charge for bandwidth usage if it has no
>> idea which client is behind which IP address?
>
> It's news to me that any ISPs *do* charge by bandwidth usage...

How do you think they find people like this?:  Of course they know which 
IP address goes with which account.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm

Post a reply to this message

a spin-off of CSI?

yep, the unlimited zoom is a favorite scifi cliche ever since Blade 
Runner... :)

of course, what they don't tell you is that all their video recordings 
are in 1 gigapixels density... :)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> On 27/04/2012 01:23 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>>     The ISP knows which one of their clients has which IP address at 
>>>> any
>>>> given moment
>>
>>> Really? That's news to me.
>>
>>    And exactly how would an ISP charge for bandwidth usage if it has no
>> idea which client is behind which IP address?
> 
> It's news to me that any ISPs *do* charge by bandwidth usage...

what isn't new to you after 30+ years of walking this planet?

Post a reply to this message

On 27/04/2012 03:15 PM, nemesis wrote:
> a spin-off of CSI?

Unrelated, AFAIK. Actually it's a spin-off of JAG.

(Like JAG, it's fairly comical, whereas CSI is dark and gritty.)

> yep, the unlimited zoom is a favorite scifi cliche ever since Blade
> Runner... :)

Blade Runner was just *absurd*! The other day, I was thinking about 
whether you could even hypothetically do that without running into the 
Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

> of course, what they don't tell you is that all their video recordings
> are in 1 gigapixels density... :)

Heh, maybe. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> - You *cannot* take CCTV footage, enlarge it 20x, "run an imagine
> enhancement algorithm" and then read a car numberplate from 300 yards.

You'd be surprised.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2012 4:29, Warp wrote:
>    Of course *showing* such a map on the fly is just for the viewers.

Two words: Google Analytics.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:14:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> US Navel Criminal Investigative Service

That's a lot of belly-button investigation.  Must be based in Miami. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/04/2012 02:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:14:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> US Navel Criminal Investigative Service
>
> That's a lot of belly-button investigation.  Must be based in Miami. ;)

Actually, NCIS operates out of the Washington Navy Yard, which - as the 
name somewhat suggests - is located in Washington DC.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:10:57 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 28/04/2012 02:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:14:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> US Navel Criminal Investigative Service
>>
>> That's a lot of belly-button investigation.  Must be based in Miami. ;)
> 
> Actually, NCIS operates out of the Washington Navy Yard, which - as the
> name somewhat suggests - is located in Washington DC.

What was that sound?  Oh, yes, the sound of the joke flying past and 
hitting the ceiling.

"Navel" is not the same as "Naval".  ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2012 11:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> What was that sound?  Oh, yes, the sound of the joke flying past and
> hitting the ceiling.

Do you have any idea who you're talking to here? :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:48:19 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 30/04/2012 11:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> What was that sound?  Oh, yes, the sound of the joke flying past and
>> hitting the ceiling.
> 
> Do you have any idea who you're talking to here? :-P

I thought you *might* wonder why I made the joke about belly-buttons 
after quoting the selection I did. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2012 11:48 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 30/04/2012 11:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> What was that sound? Oh, yes, the sound of the joke flying past and
>> hitting the ceiling.
>
> Do you have any idea who you're talking to here? :-P

Someone who thinks a naval destroyer is a hula hoop with a nail in it? :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:59:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 30/04/2012 11:48 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> On 30/04/2012 11:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> What was that sound? Oh, yes, the sound of the joke flying past and
>>> hitting the ceiling.
>>
>> Do you have any idea who you're talking to here? :-P
> 
> Someone who thinks a naval destroyer is a hula hoop with a nail in it?
> :-)

Wouldn't that be a 'navel destroyer'?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2012 12:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:59:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/2012 11:48 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2012 11:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> What was that sound? Oh, yes, the sound of the joke flying past and
>>>> hitting the ceiling.
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea who you're talking to here? :-P
>>
>> Someone who thinks a naval destroyer is a hula hoop with a nail in it?
>> :-)
>
> Wouldn't that be a 'navel destroyer'?
>

Indeed it would ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Do you have any idea who you're talking to here? :-P
>
> Someone who thinks a naval destroyer is a hula hoop with a nail in it? :-)

CANNOT UNSEE. >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 30/04/2012 12:17 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Someone who thinks a naval destroyer is a hula hoop with a nail in it?
>> :-)
>
> CANNOT UNSEE. >_<

Mu (無)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2012 4:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm a big fan of the TV series NCIS. But sometimes it really makes me
> laugh.
>
> For those that don't know, the series follows the exploits of a
> fictional team working for the US Navel Criminal Investigative Service.
> Considering it's a show about people who investigate murders and other
> violent crimes, it's actually surprisingly humorous. Naturally every
> investigation is different, and the guy who did it is never, ever who
> you think it was.
>
> The characters are pretty much what you'd expect:
>
> - There's the team leader, the intense, silent authority figure that
> everybody both fears and deeply respects. He has a strong sense of moral
> justice and can be guaranteed to always do what's right, regardless of
> what the rule book says. He can read people like a book, he knows how to
> make people talk, and he always figures it out before everybody else
> does. Being an older guy, he is completely inept with any technology
> more modern than a telephone.
>
> - There's the wildcard. The smug, annoying, arrogant self-important
> jerk. Always wisecracking, always quoting obscure movie references. He
> thinks he is The Big, Mr Big, The Cool Guy. And the ladies are always
> all over him - as he constantly reminds everybody, every three seconds.
> In short, he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And yet, everybody
> really likes him, for no defined reason.

I don't.

> - There's the obligatory computer nerd. He can crack any cipher, and
> hack any computer system. (Unless it doesn't suit the script writer for
> today's episode.) Naturally, the guy is a high-calibre wimp. Oh, he will
> tackle people to the ground. But somehow he manages to make even that
> look wimpy. And he's really easy to intimidate. (Although, there was
> that one episode... nevermind.)

And when he is temporarily reassigned to the cyberwarfare department, 
the other geeks call him boss.

> Also, something bothers me: I'm PRETTY SURE that if a suspect refuses to
> give you a DNA sample, then you CANNOT simply offer them a drink, and
> then lift their fingerprints and DNA from the glass afterwards. It
> strikes me that there must be some kind of LAW against that kind of
> thing. (Otherwise why would you even need consent in the first place?)

Well, sometimes you want a sample without him knowing that you got one. 
  Generally speaking, if the police don't need your consent, then 
cooperation is mandatory.  (Telling an Icelandic policeman that you 
won't be giving the blood sample he has requested results in you getting 
held down by as many policemen as it takes.  Or at least that's what 
they told US military servicemen who were assigned to Iceland in 1992.)

The silly one I saw was when a computer in the lab was being hacked. 
You could tell because windows kept opening up rapidly, JUST LIKE IN 
REAL LIFE!!!111!!1!1!!!  The Geek and the Lab Goth were both typing on 
the same keyboard trying to stop this.  (In a rare fit of accuracy, this 
did not work.)  The attack stopped when the Boss pulled the power cord 
on the machine.  (I would have pulled the network cable.)

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

>> - There's the wildcard. The smug, annoying, arrogant self-important
>> jerk. Always wisecracking, always quoting obscure movie references. He
>> thinks he is The Big, Mr Big, The Cool Guy. And the ladies are always
>> all over him - as he constantly reminds everybody, every three seconds.
>> In short, he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And yet, everybody
>> really likes him, for no defined reason.
>
> I don't.

Me neither. He's the most unlikeable guy in the show.

>> - There's the obligatory computer nerd. He can crack any cipher, and
>> hack any computer system. (Unless it doesn't suit the script writer for
>> today's episode.) Naturally, the guy is a high-calibre wimp. Oh, he will
>> tackle people to the ground. But somehow he manages to make even that
>> look wimpy. And he's really easy to intimidate. (Although, there was
>> that one episode... nevermind.)
>
> And when he is temporarily reassigned to the cyberwarfare department,
> the other geeks call him boss.

Yeah, but that's probably just out of reverence for a guy who's a bigger 
nerd than they are.

>> Also, something bothers me: I'm PRETTY SURE that if a suspect refuses to
>> give you a DNA sample, then you CANNOT simply offer them a drink, and
>> then lift their fingerprints and DNA from the glass afterwards. It
>> strikes me that there must be some kind of LAW against that kind of
>> thing. (Otherwise why would you even need consent in the first place?)
>
> Well, sometimes you want a sample without him knowing that you got one.
> Generally speaking, if the police don't need your consent, then
> cooperation is mandatory. (Telling an Icelandic policeman that you won't
> be giving the blood sample he has requested results in you getting held
> down by as many policemen as it takes. Or at least that's what they told
> US military servicemen who were assigned to Iceland in 1992.)

Yeah, but not in the USA or the UK, AFAIK. Both of these countries 
require consent before collecting fingerprint or DNA evidence (although 
refusing might itself be considered suspicious).

> The silly one I saw was when a computer in the lab was being hacked. You
> could tell because windows kept opening up rapidly, JUST LIKE IN REAL
> LIFE!!!111!!1!1!!! The Geek and the Lab Goth were both typing on the
> same keyboard trying to stop this. (In a rare fit of accuracy, this did
> not work.) The attack stopped when the Boss pulled the power cord on the
> machine. (I would have pulled the network cable.)

I very much doubt that Gibbs knows the difference between a power cable 
and a network cable. And either way, it doesn't stop hostile code 
running on your system, it just stops the program's diabolical master 
from talking to it.

But yeah, it's pretty stupid all round. I blame this on the fact that 
99% of the population have NO IDEA how computers actually work...

Post a reply to this message

> Sometimes I have to wonder though... Who is their scientific advisor?
> And do they know what they're talking about?

An even better question: How do they make the model dead people? 
Because, damn, those things look EXTREMELY REAL! o_O

They must have an entire department that just /makes/ dead bodies. 
Because they sure find a lot of them...

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> The silly one I saw was when a computer in the lab was being hacked. 
> You could tell because windows kept opening up rapidly, JUST LIKE IN 
> REAL LIFE!!!111!!1!1!!!  The Geek and the Lab Goth were both typing on 
> the same keyboard trying to stop this.  (In a rare fit of accuracy, this 
> did not work.)  The attack stopped when the Boss pulled the power cord 
> on the machine.  (I would have pulled the network cable.)

  In fact, pulling the plug may make things worse. If the hacking is done
to a server, then pulling the plug from a terminal isn't going to help
anything (it's unlikely that the server would be plugged in to a wall
socket right there in the lab). The only thing it achieves is to stop
the people using the terminal from trying to stop the hacking, until
the terminal is booted up again.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/05/2012 03:08 PM, Warp wrote:

>    In fact, pulling the plug may make things worse. If the hacking is done
> to a server, then pulling the plug from a terminal isn't going to help
> anything (it's unlikely that the server would be plugged in to a wall
> socket right there in the lab). The only thing it achieves is to stop
> the people using the terminal from trying to stop the hacking, until
> the terminal is booted up again.

Yeah. If it's not Abbey's personal computer that's being hacked, 
shutting it down probably won't help. I hadn't even thought of that...

Post a reply to this message

On 5/23/2012 7:08, Warp wrote:
>    In fact, pulling the plug may make things worse. If the hacking is done
> to a server, then pulling the plug from a terminal isn't going to help

In this particular case (which is so stupid it's infamous), one of them 
states it's a very targeted attack directly on that one computer.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/23/2012 1:06, Invisible wrote:
> An even better question: How do they make the model dead people? Because,
> damn, those things look EXTREMELY REAL! o_O

I think it must be a blast being a special effects guy for Bones.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 27/04/2012 01:43 PM, scott wrote:
>> It's *very* improbable that an outside adversary would know
>> precisely what software your forensics lab runs.
>
> Actually, if they were wanting to attack you they would quite likely
> know precisely what software was running.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Sure, a major world government trying to shut down a key military target 
could have access to that type of information.

A petty criminal who offed somebody in the street and then tried to 
write a virus to hide the crime? Are they /really/ going to know which 
government agency will be investigating them, let alone which lab will 
process the forensics? I DOUBT IT. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 23/05/2012 09:06 AM, Invisible wrote:

> An even better question: How do they make the model dead people?
> Because, damn, those things look EXTREMELY REAL! o_O
>
> They must have an entire department that just /makes/ dead bodies.
> Because they sure find a lot of them...

I noticed one of the dead guys breathing the other day. Which suggests 
that at least that one particular guy was actually a live actor playing 
dead.

If anything, that's /more/ impressive! (Would explain why all the shots 
are cut so small though...)

Post a reply to this message