...... and did some assignments
in which ginger forgets what made her so angry about the work of Dorothy e. denning
I am, more than anything else, puzzled by this paper. “Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism” is a paper that does not seem quite in line with the situation for which it was written. The paper, it would seem, was written for a conference given by the Nautilus Institute, the subject of which was American foreign policy in the internet age. The Nautilus Institute (nautilus.org) seems to be a fairly benign type of organization. On their website, they sell themselves as a voice of moderation in American foreign policy. This is where the disconnect comes. The way Denning expresses herself is not what I would call moderate. It is also overly cynical.
Denning paints passive activism as the only acceptable form of action. Write to your member of parliament, sign a petition, do a little research. Denning has no use for any action more radical. She admits that cyberterrorism is still only theoretical, and she portrays hacktivists as villains. She appears to be overly fond of the status quo.
NOTE: When I first sat down to write this reading response, I had just read the article and was extraordinarily angry about it. I was so angry that I could only put down one coherent paragraph. I resolved, at that point, that I would take a short break from the article, and come back to it when I had cooled down a little. Unfortunately, I gave myself a slightly too long cool down period. It's roughly a month after I read the article, and I can't really remember what it was that made me so angry. I've written one paragraph in addition to the first one, and short of going back and rereading the article, I'm afraid that I just can't remember anything else that I wanted to write. I'm now operating on the principle that two paragraphs and a disclaimer are better than no paragraphs at all.