Revealing mistake: At the beginning, Griffin sits back on his chair after getting information about the first hacker who attacked their computer. He's about to put his hand on a trackball, and you can see for a second a badly covered Logitech's logo (they have left some characteristic details); the model is a Logitech TrackMan.
Untraceable (2008)
1 revealing mistake
Directed by: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Diane Lane, Colin Hanks, Billy Burke, Joseph Cross
Continuity mistake: The skull on the Killwithme website is an x-ray of Owen's father's head. In the movie, it was mentioned that the glasses were found on the roof by an employee, and was sold on some website. Why would the x-ray have the glasses on the face of the skull if they were not with the corpse?
Agent Jennifer Marsh: Username and password please?
Agent Griffin Dowd: Coming to you... now. Chang's restaurant?
Agent Jennifer Marsh: He hacked into their site?
Agent Griffin Dowd: No. Half the office eats there. He's messing with us. He wanted us to find this. Who the hell is this guy?
Question: It's been a while since I've seen this movie, but I remember a scene in which the FBI gives a press conference urging users not to log on to the website, as they then become accessories to the murders. If that's the case, why not say that anyone who accesses the site to watch someone be killed will be charged as an accessory to murder since they can presumably identify the IP addresses of those who watch? It definitely would be a lot of people that would be charged and would cause its own separate and long investigation, but it could have deterred a lot of people from watching.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Most people who log onto a website know they can be traced through their IP address. Also, this is a movie, and plot details often are not logical or realistic.
raywest
For sure. But I guess to expand upon my question, is there any reason in particular in the real world why the FBI wouldn't threaten to charge people as accessories to murder? As in, are there any legal loopholes that would prohibit the FBI or any law enforcement agency in the U.S. from charging people if the extent of their involvement is driving up views which hasten the victims' deaths? I wanted to submit this as a mistake, but I didn't know if there were extenuating circumstances.
Phaneron