TechTv's remit is to be, technologically speaking, lowest common denominator television. Of course things some things, such as hacking are complex subjects - too complex for programmes such as TechTv to handle properly. Trying to reduce hacking to lowest common denominator television leads events like TechTv's "Hacker" segment. But the question in most hackers' minds is whether the supposed hacker on the show was an actor reading from a script rather than a genuine hacker. If this is the case - was the TechTv "hacker" segment faked?

For those who still don't know, TechTv is an IT orientated programme that airs every Tuesday and Saturdays on RTE Network 2. It is funded by the Information Society Commission (Infoscom), a government funded body who refused to reveal how much they had given to the producers of the show. The show has improved drastically over the last few weeks and the "Hacker" segment seems to be an isolated slump.

The movie "Hackers" is reviled among the hacker community for being in many areas utterly clueless. "Sneakers" is regarded as a far superior portrayal of the mindsets involved. However it seems that cluelessness attracts the clueless. TechTv used a section from "Hackers" and a section from "Wargames" to set up the kill. It claimed that Hollywood gave a pretty sympathetic view of hackers as being "smart, loveable teenagers who are fighting evil". But then it claims that the real world story is different and proceeded to use Kevin Mitnick as their bete noir to show that hacking is bad.

They rehashed the usual smug soundbytes about how Mitnick started his career by hacking US military installations a la Wargames. He did not. But they needed an example to show that hacking was bad. There was no counterbalance to show where ethical hacking had alerted companies to possible problems.

For any show to deal with the issues of hacking and hackers takes a great deal of experience and knowledge. The experience and knowledge was obviously lacking in the case of TechTv but that was not a great revelation.

The section on dealing with someone from the hacker community was so much of a cliché that it was most hackers who I spoke to took a few minutes to stop laughing. It was a blacked out image of a "hacker" called Brian.Not that he actually said much about hacking. It was so anodyne that it was basically a piece on choosing a good password. Displayed on the monitor was a file used in a dictionary attack on encrypted password files. Hackers throughout Ireland were trying to figure out who this "hacker" was and if he was really a member of TechTv's production team.

If the individual concerned was an actor reading from a script then TechTv faked the interview.

Did TechTv "fake" the hacker segment? Purely going on the non-verbal communications in the segment, most importantly the outstretched hands with palms up, it seemed like the "Brian the hacker" character wanted the cameras to believe him a little too much. The speech patterns were also disjointed to such an extent that it suggested major edits. Yet the audio quality seemed to remain constant on the interview.

Some sources have commented that "Brian the hacker" may have been an actor who was reading from a highly edited script. The original script is believed to have been supplied by someone who had a knowledge of hacking but did not wish to appear on the show. Apparently TechTv had watered it down to be as non-threatening as possible.

TechTv did not identify "Brian the hacker" as being an actor reading from a script. Instead they identified him on screen as being a hacker. If the individual concerned was an actor reading from a script then TechTv faked their interview with a hacker. This would have been a very irresponsible thing for them to do as they were just gaining some credibility.

There was one part of the "hacker" segment where the programme seemed to have something of worth. It showed Bob Semple of Price Waterhouse reviewing a possible security audit with a client. Price Waterhouse is respected in the area of corporate security and the demonstration of the planning for a security audit appeared to have been largely for the benefit of TechTv. Most security audits are carried out blind without the aid of a complete network map of each box and ingress point.