“You can’t trust your best friends software any more than you can trust his or her bodily fluids (326).” While it might seem dramatic to compare a computer virus to AIDS, I think this quote encompasses this fine line between reality and imitation that we discussed in class when we talked about plastics. This quote shows a major culture shift in America where an invasion of a device one processed was parallel to an invasion of his or her body. Though this was in 1988, I see a foreshadowing of present day technology with IPhones and computers filled with such large amounts of classified personal information that if hackers got a hold of it or if a virus took it over, the owner would feel extremely invaded of privacy or lose a lot of vital information like banking accounts or schoolwork. I know I would. -Kelsey Dean

Ross’ article compares the AIDs virus to how Americans see computer viruses and hackers at large. Ross argues that industry producers benefit from the virus crisis while delinquents, or hackers, are seen by Americans as deviants. He describes the word ‘hacker’ connotation changed to negative because of the virus crisis. In the 1980s, hackers were romanticized as part of the counter-culture. When legislative action began by criminalizing hacking, many saw it as a way of cracking down on the counter-culture. These deviants encouraged more government legislation and in turn more surveillance. Ross describes Americans saw surveillance as symbolic towards a ‘system’ and these hackers challenged that ‘system.’ (334) — James, Emily B. 2017/04/19 12:38

I found the article in Pursell to be interesting for several reasons. For starters, I never would have thought about how a computer virus acts similarly to that of a human virus. On page 327, it talks about how biological cells need a host cell, but computer viruses need a host program. This makes sense to think of how similar the two behave. I also found it interesting that this article spent time talking about the benefits that can come from hacking. Typically, all we ever hear about is how terrible of a thing it is to do. Yet, this article shed light on the fact that the people who hack are the people that are best equipped to handle making the software safer so that it cannot be hacked. Because of hacking, there have been many progressive developments in software research (330). -Emma Baumgardner

I found it so interesting to see how the “hacker ethic” has evolved throughout the 20th and 21st century. When thinking of hackers today a range of thoughts and ideas pop up. From the extreme ones who shut down the internet in North Korea to the computer science major who can get into your computer when you can’t remember your password. In the 80’s the hacker was someone apart of a “romantic countercultural” movement who was celebrated by well renowned journalist. With the continuance of technology and the internet is interesting to see how the culture takes something once seen as romantic and normalizes it. -Anna Brooks

“Media commentary on the firs scare has run not so much tongue-in-cheek as hand-in glove with the rhetoric of AIDS hysteria - the common uses of terms like killer virus and epidemic” (Pursell 325). Computer viruses started to be a problem too long after the AIDS epidemic. Media, computer experts, and government all saw the links between the two. The media put a great emphasis on the similarities between the two. The article goes on to say why the link was there, “conscious attempts to link the AIDS crisis with the information security crisis have pointed out that both kinds of virus, biological and electronic, take over the host cell/program and clone their carrier genetic codes by instructing the hosts to make replicas of the viruses” (Pursell 327). These viruses did almost the same thing, one was just biological, and one was technological. - Heidi Schmidt

Never had I realized the semiotic “meaning” of computer viruses for the earlier generations; “the coded anarchist history of the youth hacker subculture; the militaristic environments of search-and-destroy warfare” (Ross 328). Since young people are generally more comfortable with computer technology, they know how to control it better and inherently how to abuse it to their advantage. This intimidates the older generations, who are characteristically used to having the benefit of knowing more. For the first time in the 80’s and 90’s a “teenage” culture arrives between childhood and adulthood, and digital technology gives these young adolescents freer rein to express themselves and do as they please. Therefore, the replacement of virtue and morals with innovation and trickery led to the creation of a special “category of crime” for “crimes with computers” and “extraordinary sentences” as punishment (Ross 330). The older and ‘wiser’ generation seeks to ultimately assert themselves with the law, in a way that cannot contain the digital revolution in their midst. — Taylor Heather L. 2017/04/19 21:31

The idea of the hacker scene always brings to mind early 80's to late 90's punk style teenagers with tattered clothes, trench coats, grunge style hair and band t shirts riding around on skate boards and using phone booths to hack into secure business websites. While this is a highly romanticized version of hacker culture, it did have some credence to it. With the introduction of computers, it opened up and entirely new social dynamic for people, especially younger crowds. Teens and adults could experiment with computers and do so many things. Naturally this led to more illicit uses, but it was not the intention for many. For some teens, hacking was a challenge, a test to see if you could beat the security of some 40 something salary man who, “didn't get it”. The teenage computer movement was born of the result of the Gen X attitude towards authority and rules. It was a systematic strike at perceived oppression at the hands of adults who had lost touch of what it was like to be a kid, especially a kid in a generation that was rapidly developing technology faster than previously. Thomas Lanier

The chapter by Andrew Ross on the concept of computer hacking has evolved over the years was pretty fascinating to read because he does good job at connecting the AIDs epidemic and a computer virus. In both scenarios, the virus has to latch onto a host and replulicate itself until it is fully in the system “so to speak”. Similar to the AIDS virus, society doesn’t really understand the process of how a computer virus can infect a computer within seconds or minutes. Ross says that as people received more information of how computers getting hacked, they have become more cautious on how to protect their computers from hackers. He makes the argument that ““Media commentary on the virus scare has not run so much tongue-in cheek as hand-in-glove with the rhetoric of AIDS hysteria the common use of terms like killer virus and epidemic” (325). Even with all the resources that people have to protect their devices, hackers still find a way to take over the system and doing their own personal damage. One retired computer hacker even argued in the article that Hackers are normal people who are just deeply interested in the ways a computer system can work and how they can independently influence major changes in how the program can perform for users, whether It be good or horribly bad.- Rachel Kosmacki

This article discusses the link between science and technology. Viruses on a computer were often compared to viruses that affect human immune systems. These included the widespread AIDS epidemic, cholera, and other biological diseases. This comparison was used throughout different forms of media including the Saturday Night Live skit Ross quotes, “Remember, when you connect with another computer, you're connecting to every computer that computer has ever connected to.” (Pg 326). The warnings about computer viruses were meant to take on a humorous approach in this example, but they resonated with the American people. The panic of hackers and their abilities set in, something that the industry benefited from. -Nicole Spreeman

I found Ross’s article interesting because in a lot of ways the way that the term “hack” is used in modern day mainstream culture has changed since he wrote this article in the 1990s. These days, “hacks” exist everywhere. Scroll through your Facebook feed and you’ll find videos of all kinds of “life hacks”: food hacks, college hacks, even relationship hacks. I looked up “hack” on Urban Dictionary (I know, I know, a no-no). The first two definitions were related to computer hacking, but the third was this, “3. To jury-rig or improvise something inelegant but effective, usually as a temporary solution to a problem.” “Hacking,” Ross says, “must then be designated as a strictly amateur practice” (335). Page 330 reads, “the term hacker has lost some of its semantic link with the journalistic hack, suggesting a professional toiler who uses unorthodox methods. So too its increasingly criminal connotation today has displaced the more innocuous, amateur mischief-cum-media-star role reserved for hackers until a few years ago”. I would have to somewhat disagree with this, considering the way that we use the word “hack” today. Sure, I don’t want my computer hacked in the “real” sense of the word. But I feel that with such widespread use of the Internet, there exists less of a paranoia of getting hacked and we now reserve that paranoia for people who hack our credit cards and bank accounts. I think the reason that the term “hacking” has changed so much is because as information has become so accessible to all people through technology, everyone is now a hacker of sorts. Obviously there still exists those people who participate in the type of cyber-hacking counterculture and activities that Ross discusses. But with such a dual definition of the term “hack”, one more humorous that suggests ease of an activity, one can’t deny that the definition Ross unpacks isn’t quite as precise. –Anna Collins

“The equipment in this digital cemetery come mainly from Europe and the United States, sometimes as secondhand donations meant to reduce the ‘digital divide’ – the disparity in computer access between poor nations and rich.” (Slide 5) This quote stood out to me because though these donations are supposed to reduce this “digital divide” the scavengers in Ghana don’t want anything to do with these computers other than the metal inside of them. These donations in my opinion also wouldn’t reduce the digital divide, because donations that people give are usually due to a certain technology either not working anymore or it being out of style. Where does the equality come in giving Ghana these computers that we wouldn’t use in Europe or the United States due to them not working or being the latest fad? -Jessie Cavolt

The photos in this slide were very powerful. To me, it spoke even more to America’s throw away society. Or the masking of the throw away society through the pretense of donations. As slide 16 says, “the waste arrives as a gift.” How often do we donate items merely because we don’t want them anymore? How often do we actually think,”this can be of actual use to someone else” instead of “this is taking up too much space in my home?” The breaking down of the technology for the pieces that make it up also really illustrates the mortality of technology. Individual pieces of technology do not last forever, especially today, when the focus is on the next new thing. What we covet today, becomes pieces of scrap to someone else tomorrow. - Shannon K.

I agree that this image slideshow speaks to the wasteful nature of the American culture, where we all too often think “this is taking up too much space, I need to get rid of it,” instead of “this will help someone else, so I’ll donate it.” The idea that is so pointedly stated in the last slide, that the waste in these poor countries is arriving masked instead as a gift is disturbing in that it highlights the very self-centered nature of the more “modern” countries that are sending these “gifts.” I also thought these pictures were powerful in showing the vast difference between perceptions of technologies by different cultures. Where the American culture clearly sees computers and other electronic technology as something that is essential enough to send over to another, poorer country in an attempt to make life better, the culture they send those things to simply use the artifacts as furniture, and for scrap parts. It seems like instead of sending computers, sending teachers and infrastructure aid would be more useful. But then, that would involve more effort than simply driving an old desktop computer to the nearest donation site. - Megan P.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was passed in 1989, but there are still violations of the spirit of the Convention. Even if these “gifts” fall into a legal gray area, the simple fact is that that is a loophole. It's disgusting how the United States and Europe view Ghana as a trash dump and recycling center. There's still worth in the spare parts, and the trash has to go somewhere anyways, so apparently it's acceptable to use a poor country for that purpose. I feel like I've seen this exact situation in dystopias in Sci-Fi. A slum of the capitol city of Ghana has been turned into a trash dump wasteland. We should have fixed this problem decades ago, and yet here we are. -Nick Skibinski

These photos are filled with young children sent by their families to scavenge. The third photo, of Abdulai Yahaya age 14, strikes me because he is the only thing in focus; all you can see are blurry flames behind him that could be from anything. Computers are the last thing you would think that filled that graveyard. But the fact that we send our old computers thinking that they are of the same value in their culture as they are in ours highlights the digital divide these photos illustrate. -Madison White

Scrolling through these photos opened my eyes to the fact that when charities donate technologies and innovative products to third world countries, the appreciation is there, but the need for necessities is ever-present. We in America have overall access to the necessities, food, water, shelter, etc…but impoverished countries don't have the yearning for technology as we follow the latest trends. They yearn for what we take for granted. Instead of donating computers and phones, continuing to supply food and clean water and supplementing the country's wealth and job markets should be the primary concerns, along with health care. Once the basics are taken care of, children would not need to work and endanger their lives. Look at America while they were partaking in child labor. Those children needed the money in order to help their family get the necessities, and therefore, it is not our place to judge other countries that allow it. The countries' economic and job infrastructures need dire help, and these pictures should only inspire people more to help. — McGowan Khayla J. 2017/04/19 22:06

In the United States, we have such a throw it away mentality that we don’t seem to find so much importance in what we call scraps as others do. This slideshow from The New York Times has 16 photos of people living in Ghana looking through trash for valuables left behind in a “Global Graveyard for Dead Computers in Ghana”. Boys at young ages have to go to these dumps to scavenge through everything to try and find valuables. These photos on each slide give such us a small glimpse into what is their everyday job. Something we would never see here in the US. One of the photos is of an 11-year-old girl, it is so striking seeing her with a bowl on her head (often [to] carry ice to put out fires) wearing a white dress, flip flops, a blue wrap on her head, and a pink belt. The flip-flops against the ground are so strange to see. We would expect to see someone wearing protective shoes in an area with glass and smoke and trash all over but she doesn’t have that luxury. All of these photos are very important and bring light to the situation we have where when we are done with technology it ends up in these kinds of places. -Megan Liberty

In my Small Group Communication course, we talked about the digital divide and how pervasive it is. One of the reasons for the digital divide is the fact that tech companies are ultimately in competition with one another to make money. However, in certain areas of the world, there simply is no market for the technology because consumers cannot afford the technology or have not been taught how to use it. Because of this, these companies never bring their products to market in these areas because they won't sell. Unfortunately, this perpetuates the digital divide. Despite there being a positive correlation between access to technology and income, this photojournalism piece is reflective of the fact that if a group of people do not know how to apply technology, then it is of no use to them. The irony is that the technological donations are intended to reduce the digital divide, as the piece mentions on slide 5. However, instead of being able to use the technology to improve their lives, the Ghanaians in the piece are depicted foraging through the technological waste for individual components to sell. -Yousef Nasser

When looking through the photos its rather clear that this group of people see this technology as something that can be sold for the scrap metal in order to get the needs they really need like food and water. You can't eat a computer, nor have these people grown up in an environment that fosters use of computers in advances in technology. It's sort of ironic that they can give people this hazardous waste simply by calling it a gift rather than waste, but they are using this gift to improve their lives just not in the way the donors intended. - Laura B. Downs

One image that really struck me was the photo with the burning computer with the caption explaining that this the burning of technology is often done so its metals can be sold for profit. To me, this showed the differences between the wealthiest countries and the poorest ones. In wealthy nations, access to information via computers and the internet is vital. One can't really operate from day-to-day without it - and their life wold be incredibly difficult (by their standards). However, poor countries don't have the ability to use the technology for information purposes but instead are forced to use the physical materials to help provide incomes, despite the negative consequences for the environment. This lack of information will keep allowing the wealthy countries to pull increasing farther ahead of the poorer countries. - Helen Salita

My Intro to Digital Studies class has gone over the wasting of toxic electronics, so it was not surprising to see the Times article, but it was no less upsetting. The inability to recycle hazardous material by throw-away societies affects the whole world, specifically regions where wealthier countries care less. Giving toxic materials (not worth any more than what their parts can be sold for) as gifts to groups of people in these regions is a shameless means of disposal. Mining materials to build these machines affect countries in Africa horribly, as well. The whole process of producing electronics has become a global crisis that literally poisons parts of the world that the producers seem to have no real regard for. While we've accepted the use of electronics as an essential part of our lives, we deliberately ignore 90% of our devices' history and production. — Lindsey McCuistion 2017/04/20 08:09