A cyber security analyst must steal the government’s undercover handler list when a hacker threatens to remotely crash his wife’s plane.
KnightriderMentor
A cyber security analyst must steal the government’s undercover handler list when a hacker threatens to remotely crash his wife’s plane.
Share
A Government cyber securities analyst must complete a series of treasonable tasks (like?) while attempting to find the hacker threatening to destroy?his wife?s plane if he fails (why is the plane being attacked what where is wife flying to?). (Reminds me of the film BLACKHAT)
After an unknown cyber-terrorist threatens to attack the plane a government agent’s wife is on, he must secretly complete a series of treasonable tasks at his request. I don’t know if this wording makes things much clearer, this story could work as a film but ?if you add the terrorists motivation It wil work as a logline too.
“A cyber security analyst for the government must complete a series of treasonable tasks while secretly attempting to find the hacker threatening to collide his wife?s plane with another if he fails.”
Hey Knightrider,
You could shorten “…must complete a series of treasonable tasks” and just say ‘must commit treason to…’. Although shorter and straight to the point, it may come off as vague to other readers and understandably so. But, it can serve as a stepping stone to a more specific action of treason your MC must take to find this hacker.
“A cyber security analyst for the government must complete a series of treasonable tasks while secretly attempting to find the hacker threatening to collide his wife?s plane with another if he fails.”
I think saying ‘commit treason’ conveys the action he must take clearly enough.
Example:?When a hacker remotely hijacks his wife’s plane, a government cyber security analyst must commit treason to stop him from causing the plane to crash.?(~25 words)
>>>commit treason
What kind of treason?
And: ?some hero. ?(Not.) ??Heroes do the right thing. ?Not the expedient thing. ?That is, if you want the audience to root for him.
If what you have in mind is that he’s going to fake or delay committing treason while he struggles to save his wife (and the lives l the other innocents on the plane), okay. ?But that’s not what the logline seems to say.
Just because the audience will sympathize with a collateral innocent victim (his wife in this case) doesn’t mean they will sympathize and root for the protagonist who does the wrong thing, ?that they will absolve him of treasonous acts that could inflict injury and death on an entire country — far more people than his wife, or the other passengers on the plane.
This was one reason why the denouement of “The Counselor” , which I posted a logline for 2 days ago, was so unsatisfactory. ?I pitied the wife who becomes collateral damage as a result of the lawyer doing a lucrative drug deal. ?But her fate did not make me pity the lawyer. ?He was not a particularly sympathetic nor compelling character to begin with, and her lamentable fate as a result of his illegal acts only made me like him less.
The current re draft of the logline is still confusing. If one of the key points in the logline is that he will catch the hacker ten best to specify this as his main goal instead of a secondary one.
After a hacker threatens to crash his wife’s plane unless he provides him with top secret access codes a security analyst must track the hacker down to save the flight.
“When two passenger planes are set on a collision course, a cyber security analyst must play a hacker?s twisted game to save both planes.”
The only thing I see about this version is that it is vague in what he must do. Commit treason is more specific than ‘play a hacker’s twisted game’. Also, I think you may want to just leave the second place out, have the hacker threaten to crash it into a populated area. At least in the logline, all we need to ?know is that the plane is set to crash. Also, if the wife is the reason he would commit treason, I say leave it in. Would he really commit treason for a bunch of strangers? Why would he even be the one contacted in that case? He would be much more likely to deviate from the hacker’s plan if it weren’t someone he cared about on that plane.
Example:?When a hacker threatens to remotely crash his wife’s plane unless he commits treason, a government cyber security analyst must on while take control?of the plane before the hacker crashes it.?(~32 words)
I can’t square the circle on all the variations ?and tweaks that have been done on the premise.
Except to say that since 9/11, the mind set of the U.S. security agencies (and most others) is that it is no use giving into the demands of terrorists because they are so ?fanatical ?they will carry out their lethal threats even if governments comply with their demands.
?Which in this situation is exactly what the villain can do without having to put any blood or skin into the game because he’s can crash the plane remotely, right? ?If the villain gets the information he wants, what’s the downside for him for going through with the threat anyway? ? ?It’ would seem to be a win-win proposition for him. ?And a win-win- win if he also kills the hacker. ?If the villain’s reach is so great that he can destroy a plane remotely, why can’t he also kill the analyst after he gets what he wants from him?
Ergo, it’s reasonable for the protagonist to conclude that his wife is doomed if he doesn’t comply — and she’s doomed if he does. ?So, it seems to me, the dramatic question is ?not whether he can steal the data, but can he foil the villain from carrying out his threat.
And why ?would the villain want the handlers? ?Wouldn’t he really want to have the list of who the handlers handle — their contacts, their informants?