This blog post concerns my sources used to aid the process of creating a first draft.
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.
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. '
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
EDIT: Actually, it wasn't as bad as I thought originally. That was an anomaly.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment