WP1

wp1

Writing Project 1

Revisiting Past Writing: Unpacking the Complexity of Circumstance & Context

Part 1: Zoom Out

I will be graduating from USC in May 2024 with a degree in Intelligence and Cyber Operations, a specialization in Cybersecurity, and a minor in Musical Studies (Voice). As I look back over the past three-and-a-half years of my college experience, I am startled by the large volume of writing I have produced. I have written a plethora of research papers, argumentative and persuasive essays, informational reports and assessments, policy memos, and PowerPoint presentations. My writing has been diverse, addressing a wide range of topics for a variety of classes, and including a major presentation prepared during a summer internship. At first glance, the great diversity of writing projects makes it difficult to reach generalized conclusions. However, upon further reflection, most of my writing falls into three general categories: (1) freshman writing course; (2) general education courses; and (3) cybersecurity courses and internship. I will examine the writing in each category to identify differences and similarities and how each has shaped my writing experience.

Freshman Writing Course. I took this course at ASU during my first semester of college in the fall of 2020. It was a required course for all freshmen (the equivalent of USC’s Writing 150) and required me to write three analytical, research-based papers. I researched and wrote these papers during the Covid pandemic with no in-person interaction. I existed in a tiny dorm room with all classes online or and all campus activities suspended. It was my first time away from home and I had very little social interaction, leaving my room only to pick up boxed meals. These circumstances were both an advantage (there were no activities to distract me from my schoolwork) and a disadvantage (I was lonely and depressed). Nevertheless, I persevered and am proud of what I accomplished.

Each writing project was based on a general prompt about an archetype, a social problem, or a hypothesis. The papers were required, and being responsive to the prompts was required. The “required” nature of the assignments made them seem like onerous chores. However, I found that if I could find a topic that both satisfied the prompt and actually interested me and had some personal connection to me, the task became easier and more appealing. My personal connection to the topic was the critical element that provided motivation to write.

For example, for the “archetype” prompt, I wrote about the mentally-ill villain archetype in movies. My personal interest in the topic was twofold. As a child, I loved to watch movies with iconic villains like the Green Goblin. Additionally, mental health is important to me because I have friends and family members affected by mental illness. For the “social problem” prompt, I wrote about the growing acceptance of LGBTQ members by organized religion, a topic inspired by the personal experience of a friend in the Mormon church. The paper required at least one personal interview, which my friend happily provided. Finally, for the “hypothesis” prompt, I hypothesized that Major League Baseball teams’ giveaway of reusable bags would increase usage and benefit the environment. This topic was inspired by my passion for baseball, my family’s receipt of reusable bags at a Padres baseball game when I was very young, and our consistent use of those bags over the past fifteen years. These personal connections gave me the motivation to write and inform others on topics that had personally impacted my life. These personal connections made the “required” pieces more meaningful and fulfilling. The most valuable strategy that I learned from my freshman writing class was to take something personal from your life and turn it into inspiration and motivation. 

General Education Courses. After transferring to USC, I took a number of GE courses, including archaeology, oceanography, and music history. These courses required writing supported by independent online research. However, in these classes, I had a pre-existing, built-in motivation to write, because they were classes that I was interested in and chose to take. Based on my personal interests, finding a writing topic was easy. For example, in music history, I wrote papers about Frank Sinatra, the singing techniques he employed, and how his voice changed over time. Sinatra’s voice and style have been particularly inspirational and influential in my own development as a singer. I am passionate about Sinatra and about singing. I listened to every song Sinatra ever sang and researched his techniques. I was at USC, out of Covid quarantine, socially active, and happy to be singing again, and I shared my passion and happiness through my writing.

An essay for my archaeology class was similarly inspired by personal experience. Monthly campouts through Indian Guides at the YMCA, including the collection of arrowhead replicas, were a huge, memorable part of my childhood. I eagerly researched arrowheads (more appropriately called projectile points) and found an amazing amount of information, including pictures, diagrams, analyses, tables, charts, and maps. I had originally planned to write about the evolution of projectile points throughout history, but quickly narrowed my focus to technical design specifications of the earliest projectile points. Through databases and experts in the field, I learned that there was immensely more to an “arrowhead” than I ever imagined. My research completely changed how I thought about the subject and inspired me to share my eye-opening discoveries.

Cybersecurity Courses and Internship. As I moved from GE courses into my major courses and specialization in cybersecurity, my writing changed significantly. Writing in the cybersecurity field is very different from my other college writing. I have written technical forensic reports with detailed, data-driven analyses and risk registers for sensitive company systems, and I have composed comprehensive cybersecurity plans for mock clients. In these writings, it is crucial to be detail-oriented and technically sound. The quality of a report or plan depends not only on the technical competence of the examiner, but also on the writer’s ability to translate the findings into a responsive, insightful report. An even more challenging skill, however, is taking technical information and presenting it in an understandable fashion for non-technical audiences.

During my summer internship at a cyber consulting firm, I was tasked with researching, creating, and presenting a comprehensive live-video program, including a PowerPoint and Q&A, on cyber liability insurance. This project was a huge step forward in my development as a writer. I researched the topic thoroughly, both online and through numerous discussions with experts in the field. Although I had done many presentations for mock clients, this was my first writing directed at real-world clients that I could see on the screen. Through this experience, I learned to write with inflection to keep an audience interested and alert, to present technical terms in a way that is understandable by all, and to be prepared to address every conceivable question. This was my first major writing project not required by a class, but the pressure and desire to perform well for my employer and to excel in my chosen career field motivated me, even more than a class or a grade, to do my very best work.

Although the three categories of writing described above seem extremely different from one another in type and audience, there is a common thread in that all of my best writing was motivated by a personal connection to the topic. From movie villains to baseball, and singing to cybersecurity, my personal experiences and passions have infused my writing with meaning and purpose. For me, these personal connections to the topic are the key to success.

Part 2: Zoom In

On October 13, 2023, I wrote my first ever op-ed, entitled “North Korea’s Cyber Threat: The Irrelevant Debate.” In the op-ed, I use clear language with relatively simple, non-technical vocabulary that could be easily grasped and understood without extensive cybersecurity knowledge. My rhetoric is strong and straightforward, with a non-academic, conversational tone designed to draw in my readers. My opening sentence succinctly states my hook: “Is North Korea’s cyber threat a mere nuisance, a grave threat, or something in between?” I then refuse to engage in this “irrelevant debate” and explain all my reasons in clear, unequivocal terms.

My op-ed’s intended primary audience is the U.S. community involved in U.S. security in general and U.S. cybersecurity in particular, including both public and private sector officials, managers, administrators, and personnel. A secondary audience includes individuals who are not part of the primary audience but who keep abreast of current international events and security issues, especially those relating to North Korea. My op-ed is not aimed at those with no interest in international security.

My op-ed was an assignment required by an International Relations course entitled “Asian Security Issues.” However, my intention was not just to satisfy a course requirement, but to express my opinion on a significant, current security issue and to persuade the U.S. security community to treat the North Korean cyber threat as a grave one. An op-ed utilizing a strong, clear voice fits my purpose and grabs my readers’ attention. Non-academic, non-technical vocabulary and a conversational tone support my purpose of making the topic relatable and understandable. This piece of writing is the first time I have used hyperlinks, which have the effect of increasing flow and readability while still giving the reader the option to click on the links and view my research and sources if desired.

For my op-ed, I could pick any topic within the broad category of “Asian Security Issues,” and my passion for cybersecurity led me to focus on North Korea’s cyber threat. My research revealed that while China’s cyber threat is well recognized, North Korea’s is subject to ongoing debate among scholars and analysts in the field. It was this debate that triggered my op-ed. My op-ed seeks to respond to those engaging in this debate by first identifying the respective positions. On one side are the skeptics who view North Korea’s cyber capabilities as relatively unsophisticated and at most a nuisance. On the other side are those who view North Korea’s cyber capabilities as sophisticated and ever-growing and who believe they pose a grave threat to international security. In between these two sides lies the middle ground, including those who view North Korea’s cyber capabilities as increasingly sophisticated and more than a mere nuisance, but not yet sophisticated enough to be capable of large-scale, destructive cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. However, I do not attempt to resolve the debate. Instead, I propose that the debate does not need to be resolved because, given the uncertainties involved, the only responsible position is to prepare for and defend against the worst-case, gravest threat imaginable.

In this manner, I do not explicitly align myself with, or discount or challenge, any particular position within the debate. I treat the debate as “irrelevant.” However, I do point out a number of factors that indicate that North Korea’s cyber threat is far more than a “mere nuisance,” including: estimates of $860 million to $2 billion in cybercrime revenue that North Korea could use to help pay for its nuclear weapon development; North Korea’s express and demonstrated commitment to developing its cyber warfare capabilities; Kim Jong Un’s unpredictability, untrustworthiness, and secrecy; the possibility that North Korea will obtain cyber expertise from China or Russia; and the uncertainty inherent within cyberspace. However, rather than arguing that the “grave threat” viewpoint is correct and the “mere nuisance” viewpoint is incorrect, I conclude that the debate simply does not need to be resolved one way or the other.

Thus, my op-ed is not a call for reflection on the debate. Rather, it is a call to action. It urges U.S. security and cybersecurity personnel to stop debating how grave the North Korean cyber threat is and to start preparing to defend against the gravest North Korean cyber threat imaginable. My conclusion is that there is simply too much uncertainty and too much at stake in terms of national and international security to take any chances. In short, the U.S. must “prepare for the worst.”