Revised Post to Peer Reviewers

Here is a working link to my final cut. 

My greatest success is that I didn't miss the deadline. I was certain I needed to finish it on time, and I pulled through.

However, my greatest weakness is that it was on time, because that meant the final product was slightly rushed. 

However, my message is clear - do NOT publicly support the FBI backdoor, or you are promoting the destruction of the first amendment. 

Reflection on Project 3

 This blog post concerns my thoughts on project 3.

I'm so happy that it's over. I was pressed for time, but in the end, iMovie was a lot more intuitive than I remember. 

My biggest success was creating my final product. It's nice to look back at a piece of work you made. When you make the work, you can tell what to do for next time to make it easier, too. 

The biggest challenge was balancing entertainment and education. This video was a little preachier than I would have liked, but it's not a huge deal. 

Next week will be way better (for this class at least, a disastrous week for my other classes). 

I spent way more time on this project than any other, however the final product was one of my least favorite. It's weird hearing the sound of your own voice!

Editorial Reports 13a & 13b

This blog post concerns revisions of two different parts of my rough cut, and how they changed for the final video. 

Concerning the five reasons, I have concluded that there is not enough detail for each point in order to convince the reader. Here is an attempt to bolster each argument in the body.

Rough Body:

Here are FIVE reasons that allowing an FBI backdoor on every iPhone is a terrible idea.

REASON 1: There is no single use key like the FBI wants. Access to one iPhone means access to every iPhone. As reasonable as it seems to make a one-use, the algorithms in which the iPhone encrypts data is standard across every phone. Once you have access to one, you have access to them all. 

REASON 2: It would hardly provide emotional support to grieving family members. The cynical approach to this is that their loved ones are already gone; it is selfish to jeopardize the lives of millions of law-abiding Americans in the name of "closure".

REASON 3: If FBI backdoor reaches their hands into Apple's phones, then it is a powerful statement to Google, Microsoft, and other leading tech companies that they are next. No one is safe because then the government has consent to go digging wherever they want.

REASON 4: Cyberterrorism is a much more prevalent threat than the random act of domestic violence. There is no concrete evidence that this was a foreign-inspired terror attack. In short, other countries that we are not on good terms with (North Korea, for example) would abuse these security shortcomings, thus threatening each individual who uses an iPhone in the United States, IN ADDITION TO 30 people in California.

Reason 5: Identifying these 18 minutes that went undocumented would not compensate for the fact that the suspects evaded the scene. There were other ways that the issue could have been resolved that don't involve such a drastic proposition, perhaps swifter police response times? When seconds mattered, the police show up way too late, which points that maybe staffing the police department with a few workers would be a more viable solution.

Revised Body:

Here are FIVE reasons that allowing an FBI backdoor on every iPhone is a terrible idea.

REASON 1: There is no single use key like the FBI wants. Access to one iPhone means access to every iPhone. As reasonable as it seems to make a one-use, the algorithms in which the iPhone encrypts data is standard across every phone. Once you have access to one, you have access to them all. 

REASON 2: It would hardly provide emotional support to grieving family members. The cynical approach to this is that their loved ones are already gone; it is selfish to jeopardize the lives of millions of law-abiding Americans in the name of "closure".

REASON 3: If FBI backdoor reaches their hands into Apple's phones, then it is a powerful statement to Google, Microsoft, and other leading tech companies that they are next. No one is safe because then the government has consent to go digging wherever they want.

REASON 4: Cyberterrorism is a much more prevalent threat than the random act of domestic violence. There is no concrete evidence that this was a foreign-inspired terror attack. In short, other countries that we are not on good terms with (North Korea, for example) would abuse these security shortcomings, thus threatening each individual who uses an iPhone in the United States, IN ADDITION TO 30 people in California.

Reason 5: Identifying these 18 minutes that went undocumented would not compensate for the fact that the suspects evaded the scene. There were other ways that the issue could have been resolved that don't involve such a drastic proposition, perhaps swifter police response times? When seconds mattered, the police show up way too late, which points that maybe staffing the police department with a few workers would be a more viable solution.

It doesn't take a genius to notice that my rough conclusion is half-assed. So here is an attempt to expand upon the points I barely touched. Not only do I seek more content, but I seek a more targeted conclusion to make, that point being that the backdoor's cons outweigh the pros.

Rough Conclusion: 

Even in theory, the thought that we should allow government officials to view private terrorist conversations automatically means that they would see our conversations too. It's a terrible idea, and put into practice, when would we be able to say "enough is enough, you can't see anymore"? This isn't about finding where terrorists ran around in California for 18 minutes, it's about protecting the liberties of the law-abiding citizen, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Revised Conclusion:

The aforementioned points provide more than ample evidence that exposing key weaknesses of the iPhone (that should not and were not intended in the first place) has backlashes that extend far beyond what the FBI suggests. It's a terrible idea, and put into practice, strips us of one of our amendments that binds our country together - our right to privacy.? This isn't about finding where terrorists ran around in California for 18 minutes, it's about protecting the liberties of the law-abiding citizen, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It's about telling the FBI that they cannot bully Apple, they cannot bully Google, they cannot bully ANYONE into playing their sick game. 

Peer Reviews 13a & 13b

This blog post concerns peer reviews of two different students' research reports.

Nick Hernandez's research report

I assured Nick that each of his sources were well-explained. I knew within a few sentences each who each stakeholder was, and what they tried to convey.

However, I also indicated he needed more sources. As of right now, there are only three sources, which is below the required 8. That will hinder the process of developing a strong, well-rounded argument. 

Overall, my biggest advice was to just keep going. There isn't enough content right now.

Hannah Gardner's research report

My comment to Hannah was that she had 10 extremely detailed, well thought out sources. Each individual source was from a different, yet credible perspective.

My only concern is that she will not be able to fit all, if even half, of her desired points into her essay without an information overload. That is personal preference, but if I were reading a super long essay, I don't know how long I could keep reading, unless the paper was extremely well chunked.

Overall, my biggest advice was to trim. Find the key points, utilize those.

Blog Directory For my Peers

This post concerns my blog directory in the production phase.

Below is a working script for my video essay. Enjoy!

On December 2, 2015, two terrorists shot 36 people in San Bernardino, California. 21 were injured, 14 were killed. The event itself took place at the Inland Regional Center at a holiday gathering. 

The Inland Regional Center is ran by the government, and harbors 30,000+ with developmental disabilities to allow them to assimilate into society. 

Indeed this place was, indeed a gun-free zone. However, we aren't talking about gun control. Everybody has their opinions on guns, and let's face it, how many times can you beat a dead horse?

Let's talk about something much bigger than gun control - and that is your right to privacy, and the people who seek to violate it.

I purposefully will not include the names of the two terrorists, because that would only give them the attention they seek.

A lot happened on the day of the massacre. They dropped their child off before committing the shooting in the morning. The couple then drove to the Inland Regional Center, and then, opened fire on the crowd. Calls came in around 11:00AM saying people had been shot.

Around 7 minutes later, firefighters made their way onto the scene. At 11:40AM, around police zoned off the area, and at 12:25PM, the officers then started sweeping the area.

Surveillance from various street cameras, eyewitnesses, etc. helped pinpoint a working timeline that allowed the police and FBI to track the suspect's movement.

18 minutes, from 12:59PM to 1:17PM, went undocumented. The movement of the two went dark, and that is precisely what worries the FBI. What were they doing during that time?

Perhaps knowing what the couple was doing during that short time could lead to so many other things. Perhaps they stopped at a house, where other terrorists reside as well. Maybe they could use this to find the weak link in the terrorists' network.

Unfortunately, this is speculation at its finest, completely unsubstantiated in factual basis.

But what is not speculation is that what the FBI wants to do will harm the average user's rights and only benefit direct people resulted by the tragedy emotionally.

The FBI demanded in February that Apple create a backdoor, which allows them to punch as many passcodes into the phone without wiping the hard-drive after 10 incorrect attempts. 

This would allow them to crack into any phone, despite the fact they only seek data from these two phones.

Here are FIVE reasons that allowing an FBI backdoor on every iPhone is a terrible idea.

REASON 1: There is no single use key like the FBI wants. Access to one iPhone means access to every iPhone. As reasonable as it seems to make a one-use, the algorithms in which the iPhone encrypts data is standard across every phone. Once you have access to one, you have access to them all. 

REASON 2: It would hardly provide emotional support to grieving family members. The cynical approach to this is that their loved ones are already gone; it is selfish to jeopardize the lives of millions of law-abiding Americans in the name of "closure".

REASON 3: If FBI backdoor reaches their hands into Apple's phones, then it is a powerful statement to Google, Microsoft, and other leading tech companies that they are next. No one is safe because then the government has consent to go digging wherever they want.

REASON 4: Cyberterrorism is a much more prevalent threat than the random act of domestic violence. There is no concrete evidence that this was a foreign-inspired terror attack. In short, other countries that we are not on good terms with (North Korea, for example) would abuse these security shortcomings, thus threatening each individual who uses an iPhone in the United States, IN ADDITION TO 30 people in California.

Reason 5: Identifying these 18 minutes that went undocumented would not compensate for the fact that the suspects evaded the scene. There were other ways that the issue could have been resolved that don't involve such a drastic proposition, perhaps swifter police response times? When seconds mattered, the police show up way too late, which points that maybe staffing the police department with a few workers would be a more viable solution.

Even in theory, the thought that we should allow government officials to view private terrorist conversations automatically means that they would see our conversations too. It's a terrible idea, and put into practice, when would we be able to say "enough is enough, you can't see anymore"? This isn't about finding where terrorists ran around in California for 18 minutes, it's about protecting the liberties of the law-abiding citizen, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Editorial Reports A and B

This blog post concerns my editorial reports for production.

The first piece of work comes straight from my introduction. Below is a script of my raw and revised versions. A few minor tweaks takes the viewer out of his/her comfortable seat in the bleachers and onto the main floor as a stakeholder. 

RAW HOOK:

On December 2, 2015, a married couple committed a mass shooting, killing 14 people and injuring 22 in San Bernardino California. The event itself took place at the Inland Regional Center at a holiday gathering. 

The Inland Regional Center is ran by the government, and harbors 30,000+ with developmental disabilities to allow them to assimilate into society. 

Indeed this place was, indeed a gun-free zone. However, we aren't talking about gun control. Everybody has their opinions on guns, and let's face it, how many times can you beat a dead horse?

Let's talk about something much bigger than gun control - and that is your right to privacy.

REVISED HOOK:

On December 2, 2015, two terrorists shot 36 people in San Bernardino, California. 21 were injured, 14 were killed. The event itself took place at the Inland Regional Center at a holiday gathering. 

The Inland Regional Center is ran by the government, and harbors 30,000+ with developmental disabilities to allow them to assimilate into society. 

Indeed this place was, indeed a gun-free zone. However, we aren't talking about gun control. Everybody has their opinions on guns, and let's face it, how many times can you beat a dead horse?

Let's talk about something much bigger than gun control - and that is your right to privacy, and the people who seek to violate it.

The second piece of work comes from my first body paragraph. Again, my rough and my revised versions.

RAW INTRO:

I purposefully will not include the names of the two terrorists, because that would only give them the attention they seek.

A lot happened on the day of the massacre. The dropped their child off before committing the shooting in the morning. The couple then drove to the Inland Regional Center, and then, opened fire on the crowd. Calls came in around 11:00AM saying people had been shot.

Around 7 minutes later, firefighters made their way onto the scene. At 11:40AM, around police zoned off the area, and at 12:25, the officers then started sweeping the area.

Surveillance from various street cameras, eyewitnesses, etc.  provided a working timeline that allowed the police and FBI to track the suspect's movement.

18 minutes, from 12:59PM to 1:17PM, went undocumented. The movement of the two went dark, and that is precisely what worries the FBI. What were they doing during that time?

Perhaps knowing what the couple was doing during that short time could lead to so many other things. Perhaps they stopped at a house, where other terrorists reside as well. Perhaps, but this is only speculation.

Unfortunately, this is speculation at its finest, completely unsubstantiated in factual basis.

But what is not speculation is that what the FBI wants to do will harm the average user's rights and only benefit direct people resulted by the tragedy emotionally.

The FBI demanded in February that Apple create a backdoor, which allows them to punch as many passcodes into the phone without wiping the hard-drive after 10 incorrect attempts. This would allow them to crack into any phone, despite the fact they only seek data from these two phones.

RAW INTRO:

I purposefully will not include the names of the two terrorists, because that would only give them the attention they seek.

A lot happened on the day of the massacre. They dropped their child off before committing the shooting in the morning. The couple then drove to the Inland Regional Center, and then, opened fire on the crowd. Calls came in around 11:00AM saying people had been shot.

Around 7 minutes later, firefighters made their way onto the scene. At 11:40AM, around police zoned off the area, and at 12:25PM, the officers then started sweeping the area.

Surveillance from various street cameras, eyewitnesses, etc. helped pinpoint a working timeline that allowed the police and FBI to track the suspect's movement.

18 minutes, from 12:59PM to 1:17PM, went undocumented. The movement of the two went dark, and that is precisely what worries the FBI. What were they doing during that time?

Perhaps knowing what the couple was doing during that short time could lead to so many other things. Perhaps they stopped at a house, where other terrorists reside as well. Maybe they could use this to find the weak link in the terrorists' network.

Unfortunately, this is speculation at its finest, completely unsubstantiated in factual basis.

But what is not speculation is that what the FBI wants to do will harm the average user's rights and only benefit direct people resulted by the tragedy emotionally.

The FBI demanded in February that Apple create a backdoor, which allows them to punch as many passcodes into the phone without wiping the hard-drive after 10 incorrect attempts. 

This would allow them to crack into any phone, despite the fact they only seek data from these two phones.

Here are FIVE reasons that allowing an FBI backdoor would disregard YOUR privacy at the expense of THEIR claims. (END)

Reflection on Global Revision

 This blog post concerns thoughts during global revision of my rough cut.

My greatest success is the fact that I was able to get everything into writing. Everything for the most part had just been floating around in the void, with no clear ideas of what is going on. Now that I have major pieces of writing, I can begin to nit-pick the details.

One of the most important things that I realized is that my main points contradicted themselves at some point. I talked about how it's important to consider the emotions of the San Bernardino families, but then I went on and said that we should keep the backdoor locked at all times, not really defending any point one way or another.

What I'm getting at is that my argument has no clear persuasion, just a few facts here and there from each side.

Next week will be just like this week, except on the local level. The devil is in the details, so inevitably, it will be harder. However, I'm ready for the challenge.

Peer Review 12a & 12b

 This blog post concerns a peer review of the rough cuts for project 3.

Peer Review 12a:

Jason's rough cut

I made a content suggestion.

I reassured Jason that his extensive usage of citations and cold, hard facts was extremely effective in framing his paper's concept. By digging up all of the quotes now, it makes it much easier to go back and focus on the details themselves.

I also discussed the importance of a hook. There seemed to be lacking an attention-grabber, and I discussed briefly how a weak hook can hurt the readability of the paper. If a reader is generally disinterested, then it will be skimmed over and the great details of the paper will go unnoticed.

The biggest thing that I learned from Jason is that more direct quotes is better. By adding these quotes, you not only command authority, but you can round out your message. It's easier to find opposing views to your own if you look at real people who have involved themselves in the field.

Peer Review 12b:

Mariana's rough cut

I made a form suggestion.

I told Mariana that I felt her usage of rhetorical questions was extremely effective in terms of organizing ideas and interesting the reader subsequently. By using these questions, we can understand the main talking points at each sub-section, which help re-grab the interest of the reader.

One suggestion I made was to cut down some of the larger paragraphs into bite-sized chunks. Instead of 6-8 line paragraphs, 3-4 is way more manageable to read on a lunch break, or even during passing period.

I learned that I could've probably picked a topic a lot less dry than San Bernardino shooting, but nothing came to mind. For my next genre, I will try to find a controversy in something eccentric, like music or arts.

Research Report

This blog post concerns my sources used to aid the process of creating a first draft.

News: "FBI breaks into San Bernardino gunman's iPhone without Apple's help, ending court case" 

Author and Host of Source: The author of the post is Fox News' Matt Dean, coupled with The Associated Press. This article comes from the Fox News website.

The source’s author(s): The first of two reasons I believe Matt is credible is because on his linkedin page he has a slew of past projects that deal with cybersecurity. Secondly, even though his earliest work is from 2013, the fact that he also is from Fox News is a testament that he is not a bottom rung kind of guy.

The target audience for the source: The target audience is somebody who already knows a bit of background. 'The surprise development effectively ends a pitched court battle between Apple and the Obama administration.' It also targets people who are invested in privacy and are most likely anti-backdoor people... just look at the title... 'breaks in'... it doesn't say that they took what was rightfully theirs, they barged the walls down.

The source’s main purpose or message: The main purpose of the passage is to inform the reader that the FBI broke into an iPhone despite Apple saying no. 'The FBI used the technique to access data on an iPhone used by gunman Syed Farook, who died with his wife in a gun battle with police after they killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.' The article also states that they are not transparent with the information they have acquired. 'The FBI is also has not disclosed what information may have been gleaned from the unlocking of the phone.'

Any important contextual details: The context of this argument is important for two reasons. First, this is the token, republican, anti-government-interference stance. This is the framework that I see to establish as well, and it's important that I read how Fox News words it so I can come across more objectively.

CNN: Mozilla chief: FBI snooping at Apple 'back door' makes you less safe

Author and Host of Source: Mark Surman is the host of the issue. The article comes from CNN.

The source’s author(s): Mark Surman is the executive director over at Mozilla. Here is a link to his twitter. Mark Surman's Twitter... His credibility is validated by his net worth. If he is able to run an extremely business in the tech world, then he is to know a thing or two about the fabric that he wove.

The target audience for the source: The target audience is people who are undecided as to whether the FBI backdoor is good or not. He thoroughly explains what the backdoor is, assuming the reader has no prior knowledge or opinion on the matter.

The source’s main purpose or message: The main purpose of the message is to persuade Americans that the FBI is unreasonable for asking to decrypt encrypted iPhones. The phrasing comes across objective, 'But it is under threat: In the United States, federal agencies like the FBI are calling on tech companies to facilitate access to encrypted communications.'
He then wraps it up with 'we'. 'Online, security must be protected. Let's work together to make 2016 the year Internet security wins and encryption remains safe. '

Any important contextual details: This article is especially important because it is not from somebody who works at CNN. This is a statement from Mark Surman, who works at Mozilla, owner of Firefox web browser. This is important because they can use Surman as an 'objective voice' to further their agenda.

NBC: Why Are Apple and the FBI Battling Over an iPhone?

Author and Host of Source: Matthew Deluca is the author of this issue. The article comes from NBC news.

The source’s author(s): Here is Deluca's twitter. Deluca's twitter Based on his following and recent history, it is safe to assume that he is not the most senior in the industry. He does not have a  huge twitter following, so he has yet to make his imprint in the field of business/security journalism. However, his writing style bridges the gap between the average person's thought and the professional writer, therefore allowing himself to reach people who wouldn't normally read these articles.

The target audience for the source: The casual, lunchtime reader would love his articles. Usages of short headings ('What does the FBI want?') look like mine, and when the writing looks similar to mine, I know it's simple and straightforward. Extensive usage of hyperlinking also makes his document extremely scannable.

The source’s main purpose or message: He is introducing both sides, unlike the articles above. 'It's important to note that this particular court order doesn't ask Apple to just go ahead and smash all their encryption on all devices with a hammer at once. ' He wants people to also formulate an opinion, and more importantly, recognize that both stakeholders, FBI and Apple, have valid points and should compromise.

Any important contextual details:  The fact that this writer is so new accounts for two things: his audacious writing style, and his ambivalent views. A more established writer usually dwells in opinion because they CAN, but I rather enjoy his approach. b

BBC: Apple order: White House says San Bernardino request is limited

Author and Host of Source: BBC is the author of this article for all purposes concerning our field of study.

The source’s author(s): The author of this source is unidentifiable. BBC does a terrible job allowing you to see readily who writes these articles. Perhaps that is because the author in this situation is not credible? Doubt it, especially w/ such a well-renowned business.

The target audience for the source: The target audience of the article is people who are not sure what to think. There are opinions pro backdoor (Hillary Clinton is very pro backdoor... but who is she to talk about cybersecurity, think e-mail leaks) and anti backdoor ('unintended consequences')

The source’s main purpose or message: The purpose centers around what Tim Cook said in regards to being asked to open the backdoor. 'Apple's Tim Cook said on Wednesday the FBI's demands set "a dangerous precedent".' Furthermore, he states, 'Apple's "The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.".' This article has very little opinion and a lot of exposition.

Any important contextual details: BBC historically is the most objective of the major news stations. Its major successes lie in the fact that it's not viewed as a huge opinion article.

Apple: A Message to Our Customers

Author and Host of Source: This article is special because it's written by Apple themselves.

The source’s author(s): Tim Cook, current CEO of Microsoft, commands credibility based on his net worth, his social media following, and the slew of inventions that have been refined and invented during his time as CEO. Here's his wiki page

The target audience for the source: The target audience is people who are concerned about FBI watching your daily life through phones. He is reaffirming that FBI should NOT have these privileges, and that privacy is the keystone of cybersecurity.

The source’s main purpose or message: He is reaffirming that FBI should NOT have these privileges, and that privacy is the keystone of cybersecurity. Furthermore, he is stating that there are consequences for breaching walls that should not exist in the first place.

Any important contextual details: Tim Cook has a shit-ton to gain from this... that's an understatement. By telling the FBI to f*** themselves, he effectively takes a gamble. If it paid off (which it didn't, but the intention), he would look like a protector of the people, and would gain customer loyalty to the vast majority, who happen to value privacy at all costs.

BGR: An iPhone backdoor like the FBI wants is more dangerous than you think

Author and Host of Source: The author of this particular author is Chris Smith, from BGR news, which is a tech magazine/website.

The source’s author(s): here is a link to his website page. Chris Smith BGR He asserts credibility as a tech enthusiast. He tinkered around with gadgets as a young kid, and this hobby turned into sheer expertise in the field. His knowledge in electronics commands authority to talk about cybersecurity.

The target audience for the source:  The target audience of his people who don't understand the consequences of FBI searching through iPhones.

The source’s main purpose or message: He is persuading readers that not only criminals will sacrifice privacy, but the law abiding citizen will too. He also talks about how the people who create the hacking software, even if the software is deleted like promised, would learn the limitations of the safety walls, and, would effectively be able to shatter them with their newfound knowledge.

Any important contextual details: It's important to know that Chris is not extremely renowned in this field. This might be due to the fact that he never really hyperlinks in his posts. His articles seem more like op-eds and less informative. Too soap-opera-y for my liking.

WIRED: Apple’s FBI Battle Is Complicated. Here’s What’s Really Going On

Author and Host of Source: Kim Zetter, from Wired, is the author of the article.

The source’s author(s): Kim Zetter is a force to be reckoned with. She commands respect as a techie... look at her twitter bio! "Senior staff writer for @wired. Author of new book"... fancy book readings!

The target audience for the source:  The target audience is anybody interested in cybersecurity. She fails to take a side, which, for ratings, might be bad. But objective approaches that lead to speculation often have the best discussions, which are seen in the comment section.

The source’s main purpose or message: The article doesn't tell you to feel one way or the other, it just gets you to think about the subject in general. Do you like that FBI wants to see your every wish, even if it saves people?

Any important contextual details: Kim is a female amongst the male battlegrounds that exist in business, cybersecurity, and politics. Her insight is especially persuasive, and she often uses gender to legitimize (not subtly) what she is saying. "One woman helped the mastermind of Paris attacks", one quote reads from her Twitter. That was the 2nd post I saw! There are numerous that talk about gender... She relies on that a bit too much.
EDIT: Actually, it wasn't as bad as I thought originally. That was an anomaly.

CNBC: Why Apple is right to fight FBI backdoor

Author and Host of Source: Rick Orloff, former Apple security Chief

The source’s author(s): Rick Orloff ... worked at Apple, case and POINT

The target audience for the source: The target audience for the message is people who believe that iPhones lack security and need strengthening, not loopholes to expose the weaknesses. 

The source’s main purpose or message: The main purpose of the message is to persuade readers that the backdoor is not a backdoor, but a security flaw. The second main message is that we should see a breach in security for what it is, a breach in security, and not a loophole that the government can use to reign over their domain.

Any important contextual details: The fact that Rick not only establishes his credibility discussing iPhones, but more importantly, highlights a bias. Because he worked there, he might not be able to talk objectively about the matter... He might feel emotional one way or another depending on how Apple treated him.