WarGames and the Great Hacking Scare of 1983

James W writes "Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the release of WarGames and Christopher Knight has written a retrospective about the film and its impact on popular culture. In addition to discussing how the movie has held up over time, WarGames was responsible for what Knight calls the Great Hacking Scare of 1983. Some examples mentioned are 'one CBS Evening News report at the time that seriously questioned whether parents should allow their children to access the outside world via their personal computers at home. A magazine article suggested that computer modems be 'locked up' just like firearms, to keep them out of the reach of teenagers. I even heard one pundit proclaim that there was no need for regular people to be able to log in to a remote system: that if you need to access your bank account, a friendly teller was just a short drive away. And Bill Gates once declared that the average person would never have a need for more than 640 kilobytes of memory in a personal computer, too.'" 2008 is also 25 years after the real-life prevention of a WarGames-style nuclear incident.

Locking up computers

[michaelmalak]

A magazine article suggested that computer modems be 'locked up' just like firearms, to keep them out of the reach of teenagers.

Um, in light of the Patriot Act and the DMCA, isn't this advice even more relevant today? I think some $5,000-poorer parents would agree.

Content industry slamming the competition.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

WarGames was responsible for what Knight calls the Great Hacking Scare of 1983. Some examples mentioned are 'one CBS Evening News report at the time that seriously questioned whether parents should allow their children to access the outside world via their personal computers at home. A magazine article suggested that computer modems be 'locked up' just like firearms, to keep them out of the reach of teenagers.

Back in those days there was more separation between TV show and movie production. And the TV executives were concerned about anything that pulled people's eyeballs away from the boob-tube (and money from their advertising rates). So there were a lot of shows that slammed the new distractions: Personal computers, networking (especially bulletin-board systems), electronic games, etc.

Similarly a few years further back, when they did the same bit on cable TV - when the separation was still more pronounced and they were worried about losing audience to paid programming such as commercial-free movie channels. I recall one cop show where the murder was committed by a cable TV operator over the negotiations and competitive bidding on a franchise to wire a city or broadcast some team's sporting events.

Re:I'm still amazed at

[MacTO]

I usually avoid any mass-media portrayal of computers and computer crime, because it usally ends up being unadulterated drivel. But when I first saw WarGames last year, I was shocked and (quite frankly) impressed. Sure there was a lot of drivel in there, but a lot of it could be considered as artistic license. The teen had to turn on a voice synthesis unit the first time the computer talked, so the talking computer wasn't magic. At least not in Lightman's room. They were quite clear that Lightman's computer sequentially tried numbers to find an access point and they found other interesting systems before getting into military systems. Again, magic was not involved. Breaking into systems usually involved some sort of research, may it be swiping passwords from the school office or doing some hard research on the people involved. He didn't magically guess the password after two failed attempts. Sure the computer had a personality, just like HAL in 2001 had a personality, but it's not as though he was dumped into some flakey virtual world. Movies are a balance between what will entertain, and what will suspend the viewers disbelief. WarGames is no exception, and I think that WarGames struck a decent balance between both. After all, how many people would want to watch a Soviet computer expert being fed information from a few spies. Who would want to watch a movie where that spy, once caught, would have a near-zero chance of escaping. Boring. Right. At least for most people.

Re:Movie wasn't that good

[0111 1110]

The rest of the movie was similar to the movies for children that they make today like spy-kids

While I will be the first to admit that WarGames was in fact totally UNrealistic with more than its share of absurd hollywood computer moments, that is a bit unfair. That's the kind of kiddie show that my 9 year old nephew would watch and he's a complete rocks-for-brains moron. Different demographics I think. Wargames was shooting more for teens than preteens.

It Has Held Up Well...

[morari]

Ultimately, the film was not about showing off flashing technology. If it were, it would be dated and obsolete. Thankfully, the film was actually a well done commentary on human condition and how we relate paranoia and war. On that front, it succeeded and shall continue to. That kind of thinking doesn't age, it's all relevant. Perhaps even more so nowadays.

Re:Ugh...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a massive world of difference between "Huh, I just increased available memory by ten times. That should last a while!" and "Huh, I just increased available memory by ten times. Now I'll never have to change it ever again, and nobody will ever need more!".

One of them shows forethought, and a reasoned comprimise between available resources and future needs, still acknowledging that in the future it will still need to be changed.

The other shows no forethought, thinking that significantly increasing something makes it perfect and will never need to be improved.

For instance, it's analagous to this more modern example:

A: "Solid State drives have hit 64 GB, that's all anybody really needs!"
B: "Solid State drives have hit 64 GB! That's good enough for most people, and sizes are always increasing!"

Capice?

Re:Lies!

[Iron Condor]

What, and, what? Seriously, I have no idea what your point is.

If a politician says "I took the initiative in creating the Panama canal", they are NOT claiming that they personally broke out a shovel, flew south and dug something. They are NOT saying that they invented digging or canals. They are NOT saying that the canal was their idea or that they drew up the plans or any such thing.

Equating "I took the initiative in creating the internet" with "I invented the internet" marks the one who is doing the equating as lacking in very basic reading comprehension.

Re:Ugh...

[1u3hr]

"No. Bill Gates did not say that."
If you said something so totally retarded, wouldn't you deny it too?

And if I was a famous person, someone would delight in finding proof that I had. No one ever has. When you can provide a citation -- eg, date and issue of magazine article, or even some someone credible on record saying they heard Gates say this, it's just an urban myth (aka "lie").

Re:Ugh...

[1u3hr]

I seem to remember that I read this quote in the beginning of the eighties, shortly after the IBM PC came out, in Elector.

No you didn't. If this had ever been printed in any form, someone would have cited it in a more definite form than "I seem to remember".