TOW 24: "Liar's Poker" Part 2

              In the second half of Michael Lewis’s “Liar’s Poker,” he explores the struggles and downfall of Salomon brothers, the banking firm Lewis had worked at. In my last TOW, I had complained about the discontinued anecdote of the Liar’s Poker game played between Merriweather and Gutfreund. While I was let down in expecting it at the end, Lewis’s story is forgivable due to its extremely satisfying conclusion. Lewis perfectly builds up a detestable image of his superiors (and indeed everyone on Wall Street) and has them put in their place by the 1987 Wall Street crash.

              Before Lewis gives the antagonists the smack down, he articulates his position on Wall Street very well. He credits his mentors through an antithesis. He credits his current mentor, Dash, as being “across his desk.” He credits his original mentor, Alexander, as the one “across the ocean.” He also quotes his peers’ metaphors about him. They describe Lewis with sexual innuendos in order to indicate that his stock-trading abilities are desirable to a sexual extent, and some of his body parts are accordingly desirable. Ultimately, Lewis successfully makes himself out to be likeable person in a sea of nightmares.

              Lewis’s ability to put himself in this position makes the ending extremely satisfying. In the stock market crash of the winter of 1987, nearly everyone he works with is fired. Except, of course, for Lewis himself. It is great to see that, no matter how rich and powerful people like Gutfreund are, they are no match for the economy of a country. Finally, Lewis goes on to quit his job. His reason is that one’s salary should reflect how much they give to society. As a bond-trader, Lewis failed to see any contribution that justified how much money he was making. Lewis rescues his character and shows that money is not everything.

TOW 23: WikiLeaks does Americans no favors

              This editorial was written by Reading Eagle News Agency about the impact of WikiLeaks on America. It seems that the article was written in response to recent fears about the CIA spying on American citizens in their homes. These fears exploded recently when videos of people asking their home devices such as Google Home or Amazon Alexa if they were connected to the CIA, and the devices responded by shutting off. Since then, Americans have feared for their privacy. The writers discuss this fear of privacy and how WikiLeaks, to some extent, holds the answer.

              The writer begins by stating that WikiLeaks has released over eight thousand documents and that not one hint the CIA is spying on American Citizens. Obviously, the writer implies that WikiLeaks not saying it means it isn’t happening. If the CIA were to be spying on American citizens, WikiLeaks would’ve said something about it. The author then argues that the CIA’s ability to spy on cell phones and computers is comforting. Knowing that the CIA can gather intelligence on potential dangers, even if the ability may be used on citizens, is favorable to the CIA lacking the ability altogether.

              This particular editorial is somewhat incoherent. Firstly, the fears of the CIA hacking and spying on citizens are somewhat unfounded as proven hastily by the author of this piece). However, there are rising fears of corporate espionage against customers that are much more legitimate. Recently, Samsung issued a warning to its customers to not discuss personal matters near their Smart TV. Clearly, the microphone in the TV is permanently on, and Samsung records its customers in order to gain information. Google and Facebook are notorious for selling their customers privacies for their own profit. It would be simply too easy for these companies to be corrupted and for the last of our privacy to be sold for money.

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/article/editorial-wikileaks-does-americans-no-favors

TOW 22: Why we should not know our own passwords

              This editorial was written for phys.org by Megan Squire, an experienced software engineer. The article, being centered around software conflict, is perfectly in Squire’s field of knowledge. Squire is a professor of computing sciences at Elon University and she obtained her Ph. D from Nova Southeastern University. Her article discusses the rising issue of privacy vs security. Many customs agents are demanding more and more access to both immigrants’ and travelers’ devices. Understandably, travelers are trying to devise ways to circumvent this invasion of privacy. Squire talks about the various methods of doing so and why the travelers have the right to practice it.

              Starting in 2009, US customs have been given permission to search electronic devices carried by citizens. This includes the right to demand citizens’ passwords. One idea that Squire and many other software developers (including the team at Google) came up with was referred to as the “I’d love to comply, but I can’t” solution. The idea was that a user’s password is something they know subconsciously, but is actually unable to share with someone else. Squire compares this to a musician who has perfected their muscle memory. They can play the song, but can’t tell someone the order of the notes they play. This security feature is extended by locking out the user if it detects irregular patterns in the user’s habits (this means someone other than the user could not use it without being locked out).

              Squire’s general argument, although never directly stated, is strongly implied: the customs searches are immoral and should be fought. She recognizes that the fight against them is borderline illegal, and addresses the real-world situations in the last paragraph. She reminds the reader that lying to the agent is the worst thing they could do. If you ever feel that your privacy is threatened, comply to the agent before seeking a digital civil liberties group. 

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-passwords.html

TOW 21: Here's one way of fighting terrorism that the U.S. may be rethinking under Trump

This article was written by Abby Sewell. Sewell was a journalist in Molalla and in Barstow before attending Northwestern University. She worked at The L.A. Times for six years. In this particular article, she describes possible changes to the US’s ant-terrorism techniques that could come about under the Trump administration. It seems that Sewell approves of the current tactics and fears that the possible changes will create negative consequences. She seems to fear that the new tactics will be less effective, and perhaps even more costly, then Obama’s tactics. She argues this through statistics and anecdotes.

Sewell begins the article with an anecdote from Lebanon. She describes a park opening. Families gathered around a public area with inflatable slides and lines of kids waiting their turn. The park is funded by the United States. The ideology behind this is that people only join terrorist organizations when their lives have gone so south that it is the only viable option for them. The purpose of the park was to establish a sense of joy in the residents of Lebanon. Perhaps a secondary purpose was to make them like the United States, in order to stop them fighting it when they grow older. This is in stark contrast to propositions put forth by the Trump administration, which favors a straightforward military approach to the issue.

The article is effective, but could be more so. The anecdote does a good job establishing a pathos argument. It makes the reader appreciate what the Obama administration’s tactics have done for the people of Lebanon. It becomes even more effective when put alongside the statistic of how little is spent on these development programs. Where I think she missed her mark was in her failure to express how Obama’s tactics stopped terrorism at its source, whereas Trump’s tactics merely offer resistance.

http://www.latimes.com/world/global-development/la-fg-development-aid-terrorism-20170305-story.html