Writ
1122 Section 97
Winter
Quarter 2012
The theme of my Writ 1122 course was
“News and Civic Literacy in the Information Age.” In class, we analyzed and
discussed various factors of technology that impacts literacy. The course
provided us guidance to identify and analyze the changes in rhetoric using higher
order thinking and intellectual skills to establish a well-rounded and less
biased interpretation of the effects of technology on literacy. It also
required a reading of Rewriting by
Joseph Harris which introduced and portrayed an approach to apply rhetorical
analysis to texts. To reinforce the focus of the course, the class read the
news, often from the web rather than the paper version, on a daily basis and
blogged as frequently as once or twice a week in practice of civil literacy.
Upon the start of each class, some students shared the news stories they were
following providing their opinion or interest in the story and citing the
source from which they learned that particular story. Since the function of
Information Age is transparent to its name, academic readings that portray
technology and literacy from different angles were assigned to help us practice
identify and analyze the author, audience, purpose, method(s), effectiveness,
and genre of the writings. The prompts of essays assigned were intended to
assess what we learned and our ability to coherently portray it in an essay. Of
my two writing submissions from this course, the first entry was a rewriting of
a news story by changing the audience and purpose and the second was an
analysis of the transformation and chronological change of a story in the media
through the alteration of rhetorical elements.
My first writing entry was my first short essay. The
prompt of this essay was to chose a news story, identify its rhetorical
elements, and rewrite it by redirecting the audience and intent of the
story to my choice. Therefore, I chose to rewrite an article from the
Huffington Post about President Obama signing an executive order enforcing
national cybersecurity to protect the U.S. from cyber threats and hacking. The
Huffington Post obtained this information from the State of the Union and
decided to 'forward' it to its readers on www.huffingtonpost.com. Contrarily, I addressed my rewriting of this story
to my older brother. The context and the tone were also altered so that it was
more personal and relatable to my brother as opposed to a bigger audience.
As opposed to the first entry, my
second entry was a longer essay that provided a more in depth rhetorical
analysis of a story as it moves through the media changing in tone, purpose,
audience, news site, and time. I chose to write about a story that covered
Aaron Swartz, a computer programmer, from his arrest in June of 2011for hacking
MIT’s network and illegally downloading millions of articles from JSTOR until
early March of 2013 even though he committed suicide two months prior. Aaron
Swartz was a computer genius who cofounded many successful sites, programs, and
organization such as Reddit and Demand Progress. His story grew in the media
because his felony started to involve the Secret Service and became a federal
case. Also, the fact that Swartz refused to publicly address his case caused a
stir of controversial thoughts from media sites, authors, bloggers, the public,
the government, and his family and friends. Through examining the changes of
this story, I learned how important rhetoric is in the transformation of a
story in the media and blogosphere.
As
first year college students from regions throughout the U.S., my class and I
obviously have different perspectives and share differing opinions on various
topics. However, the fact that we were all born in the early 1900s, the time
period that introduced many technologies such as electronic devices and the
internet, and are consumers of advanced technological products, such as laptops
and smart phones, enabled us to share some common ground. We were able to use
first handed experience to argue that we believe technology has beneficially
impacted literacy and education for the most part. The Information Age
contributed to cyber learning and offered quicker and easier research, reading
and writing, and communication modes. On the other hand, we also acknowledged
that there were some negative repercussions by practicing reading and writing
from technology. From this course, I have learned to pay more attention to the
context of writing as opposed to only its purpose. I have learned to do this
mostly from reading the news. So much information is moves within the news that
the media have many different approaches in covering a story. As a writer, I
have learned to expand on my writing skills and use various techniques authors,
writers, and journalists use in their published works. Additionally, I believe
that Harris’s Rewriting helped me
better understand how text can be used in my writing. All of these changes help
me become a more dynamic reader and writer. In the future, I think these new
habits will influence my thinking pattern. Like most things in life, thinking
is also a habit. I believe I will analyze information from more than one
perspective in the future because reading the news has given me practice and
knowledge in searching for different angles on a story.
In
rewriting “President Obama Cybersecurity Order Weaker than Previous Orders” by
Gerry Smith on The Huffington Post, I decided to focus less on the corporate
repercussions of this executive order. Therefore, I am writing a personal
letter to my older brother because his perspective on the topic of technology
and the internet is different from my own. He is very meticulous about how
parts contribute to the function of a system. He likes taking apart machinery
such as a Play station and a computer apart to learn the mechanisms and reasons
that make each device perform the way they do. He can spend hours learning on
and about the internet at a time whereas I simply use it for school. Since he is
a frequent user of various sites on the World Wide Web, he likes to keep up to
date on cyber regulations by reading news from many nations. My purpose of
writing to him aside from informing him about the recent changes is also to
inquire what he thinks of this new cybersecurity order.
Dear
Brother,
I know you are not the type of
person who will sit down and watch the entire State of Union address. However,
I also know that you search and read about topics discussed in the State of the
Union the day after. I want to let you know that President Obama signed an
executive order on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 setting standards for national
cybersecurity. The executive order aims to place protocols in order to protect
the United Stated government and companies from cyber threats. Two bills have
been written in the legislature in the past two years pertaining to similar
concerns of cybersecurity were not signed into law. Neither bill made it into
the Senate Chamber. It puzzles me that President Obama signs this executive
order even though bills in the past has failed to become law. Anyways, you have
a better grasp on the functions of the internet and threats that may concern
the U.S. Cybersecurity seems to be a controversial topic in the government. Do
you think it’s necessary?
With the signing of this executive
order, there is a much higher chance that federal cybersecurity will be enacted
enabling various monitoring activities the internet. The media and the White
House claim that this order was signed with the intention to protect the U.S.
government and companies from cyber attacks and threats. It would be reasonable
that the standards of cybersecurity would apply to institutions rather than the
public. However, President Obama claims that private information from emails
and identities have been stolen on the internet. Is he implying that the
threats on the web can also lie in the common people’s use of the internet? I
would assume that cybersecurity enforcements will affect the general public’s
use of the internet to a certain degree. What kind of adverse changes do you
think common web users, like you and I, will experience with the passing of
cybersecurity?
Also, many experts have stated that
the provisions stated in President Obama’s cybersecurity order were not as
strong as those in the previous bill. There is much reason to believe why the
nation’s government and industries need cybersecurity. For example, terrorists
could otherwise access America’s secret information and pose various threats.
However, President Obama also stated that companies will not be forced to
participate in cybersecurity protocols. They will simply receive incentives if
they choose to participate. Experts have confirmed that participation in
national cybersecurity will be expensive for companies. I do not understand the
point of enforcing cybersecurity if the chances are that companies will deny
participation to save money. What are your thoughts the basis of voluntary
corporate participation in cybersecurity regulations? You have more knowledge
about cyber regulations and previous bills about cybersecurity so write back to
me because I am all of this information is so confusing.
Sincerely,
Your
Little Sister
Technology:
A New Beginning or a Dead End?
One of the most pretentious brains
in computer science falls to the United States’ Department of Justice. Aaron
Swartz, an internet activist, at age 24 was arrested and prosecuted for 13
felony charges facing 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines. He held
strong beliefs in free public access to information online motivating him to download
millions of articles from JSTOR through the Massachusetts’ Institute of
Technology’s network. His case was
broadcasted by the news all over the U.S. receiving mixed reactions from
various groups as well as the public across the U.S. Swartz fought the
government for nearly two years until January of 2013 he committed suicide in
his apartment in Brooklyn, New York. From Swartz’s arrest until present day,
the various sources in the media released several stories depicting their
account of the authenticity and accuracy about Aaron Swartz and his crusade.
Upon the onset of Aaron Swartz’s
arrest and debut in the media, the New York Time was one of the first to
release a publication about his federal charges. This article titled
“Open-Access Advocate Is Arrested for Huge Download” was written by John
Schwartz and published on July 19, 2011. Schwartz stated that Swartz broke into
MIT’s computer network and downloaded 4.8 million articles from JSTOR and was
facing “up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines for charges related to
wire fraud, computer fraud and unlawfully obtaining information from a
protected computer.” Schwartz also acknowledges some on the exceptional cyber
activities and programs that Swartz had participated in since his early teenage
years accrediting him with several online achievements. Schwartz also wrote
that Swartz had the support of his cofounder of Demand Progress, David Segal,
Harvard law professor Lawerence Lessig, and online community. Overall, the
article was very brief and offered the facts of the story. These are qualities
of the articles often release by the New York Times because it is a
professionally renown national news distributor. Since millions of people read
the New York Times paper and website, it writes for the general public
providing accurate and immediate stories which are often quick read such as
“Open-Access Advocate Is Arrested for Huge Download”.
Aaron Swartz’s illegal download from
JSTOR did not receive massive attention from the media again until his suicide
on January 11, 2013. However, this time Swartz’s presence in the media brought
controversial viewpoints. His death uncovered unanswered questions such as why
did he kill himself and who was responsible for his death. A blog such as The
Telegraph and Rolling Stone’s political column posted their opinions in
response to these roaming questions. Blogs and opinion columns that address
controversial topics such as attempting to answers these questions attract
specific types of readers. Readers are attracted Swartz’s story, bloggers, and
followers of the blog or column’s author are some examples.
Moreover, the general depiction on how Swartz
story was received manifests in Brendan O’Neill’s blog post on the Telegraph on
January 25, 2013 and Steven Hsieh’s article on Rolling Stone’s Politics on
January 23, 2013. Both coverage were published shortly after Aaron’s death when
the primary concern questions whether the government was responsible for
Swartz’ death. Yet, they portray totally different perceptions.
Brenden O’Neill’s blog post was titled “Only one person is responsible for Aaron
Swartz's death, and that is Aaron Swartz” which can be seen to strongly
affiliate with the law’s perspective of the issue. Under this perception, the
law is right and justified as supported principles and purpose of the
legislative branch of the government. O’Neill acknowledges the stress and
pressure that Swartz was put under by the authorities and he claims:
But to make a leap from criticizing the prosecution
for being heavy-handed, which it may well have been, to saying that the
prosecutors actually helped kill Swartz is bizarre – it robs Swartz of his
agency, treating him as an automaton who was programmed to self-destruct by
evil people in authority, and it makes prosecutors responsible for something
that they couldn't possibly have foreseen, far less desired.
O’Neill is convinced that Swartz is responsible for
his own death because, “It is reported that he
had struggles with depression for a long time, even before this prosecution
started; and no matter how desolate and desperate suicides are – as they so
often are – they still make a conscious decision to end their lives; they are
still human agents, the authors of their destiny.” Moreover, O’Neill suggests
that suicide is a choice and Aaron Swartz’s death was his choice.
Contrarily, Steven Hsieh’s article was titled “Why Did
the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?” which
supports the perspective of “Swartzites.” “Swartzites” are people who shared
Swartz’s beliefs and justifications for his actions. Hsieh demonstrated support
for his argument by stating:
Two zealous federal prosecutors handled Swartz's
case: U.S. district attorney Carmen Ortiz and assistant attorney Stephen
Heymann. In the days after his death, writers, tech experts, and many of Swartz’s
friends have called out Heymann and Ortiz for prosecutorial overreach.
A White House petition demanding
the removal of Ortiz garnered well over
25,000 signatures, reaching the level which guarantees an eventual response
from the Obama administration.
Heymman and Ortiz were believed to have stepped over their boundaries in
their efforts to prosecute Swartz. Although Heymman and Ortiz acknowledged that
Swartz was not financially motivated by his actions and JSTOR did not press any
further charges, they did not give Swartz any option but to plead guilty to all
13 felony charges and receive a prison sentence. Also, the government is
believed to have targeted Swartz because he has been the FBI’s “radar” in past
years and the Secret Service got involved from the very start of his
prosecution. Hsieh writes, “Some of Swartz's advocates
believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the
age of Wikileaks and Anonymous.” This portrays an unfair system that suggests
Swartz was targeted and severely punished to warn other hackers. Futhermore,
this notion suggests that he was trialed with preconceived motives not solely
on his “felonies.”
An article from Slate released almost a
month after Swartz’s passing offers a look into Aaron Swartz’s life and
background. From a young age, Aaron Swartz took an interest and manifested a
great potential in computer technology. Swartz was born and raised in a wealthy
suburb on the north side of Chicago, Illinois. The fact that his family was one
of the first to have internet connection in the 20th century
provided him with an advantage in his interest in computer programming. Swartz
was a curious and intelligent child. However, he was never easy to accept
things. It had to make sense to him. There had to be a factor of “Swartz logic”
behind it. (Justin Peters, 1). This became his philosophy in life. Many of his
life principles, values, and beliefs stem from it. Justin Peters, a journalist
for Slate, wrote, “This was the beginning of a lifelong pattern of impatience
with unpleasant situations. Instead of trying to adapt to what he believed were
rigid, broken institutions, Swartz would try to make those institutions adapt
to him. And if they didn’t change, he would leave.” Swartz was very strong
minded and he did not care for what others thought, including the federal
government, as long as it made sense to him.
As a product of his beliefs, Aaron
Swartz was strongly determined that information such as scientific and academic
articles should be free to the public that he went to great extents to download
them with the intent to share them. Slate’s article titled “The Idealist”
describes how Swartz successfully downloaded all of the articles off of JSTOR
which stands for Journal Storage. JSTOR uploads scientific and academic
articles and reviews for institutions that subscribe and pay tens of thousands
per year. Thus, Swartz hacked into Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology’s
network and began downloading the data off of JSTOR. However, his intrusion was
detected and removed from the MIT’s network. Yet, he did not give up. He found
a custodial closet that contained the central broadband network and hooked his
laptop up to it. He left his laptop there for days checking on it from time to
time although he would cover is face with a bicycle helmet peering through the
holes to protect his identity from MIT’s cameras. A custodian discovered
Swartz’s laptop and reported it to MIT who then contacted the Cambridge Police.
However, the police were instructed by the Secret Service to leave to laptop
and install cameras in the closet to catch Swartz in action. Swartz was not
arrested until days later. At which point, he had successfully completed his
download.
The New York Times and Slate
published articles that were intended to provide information to the public. Both
were written by a corporate journalist in style that remained unbiased to the
story. The New York Times wrote the story with an emphasis on the crime and how
it was conducted whereas Slate focused on Aaron’s past. Therefore, the New York
Times provided an immediate report on raw facts from a third person
perspective. On the other hand, Slate did not publish their article until
February 7, 2013. At this point in time, Swartz has already passed away. The
article was a tribute to Aaron Swartz and offered information about Swartz in
more detail and attention to the portrayal of his life. Thus, the public who
may not have clearly comprehended the stories of his arrest and his death can
better understand him and deduct their beliefs on his story contrary to views
and opinions of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment