Questões de Inglês da FGV

    Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson, 2003, p. 3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

    Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

    Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber, 2001, p. 274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

    Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson, 2003, p. 3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

    Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

    Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber, 2001, p. 274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

    Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson, 2003, p. 3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

    Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

    Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber, 2001, p. 274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

   The story of the ransomware surge is the story of the discovery, professionalization, and growth of the targeted attack extortion model. Prior to 2016, most ransomware campaigns targeted a large and effectively random pool of end users. This “spray-and-pray” business model privileged quantity over quality, meaning ransomware actors spent less time focusing on how to apply pressure on a given victim and more time trying to reach as many victims as possible. Until the tail end of this period, ransomware did not generate enormous profits. Being a secondtier avenue of cybercrime, it failed to attract as much talent or activity as it would in the years to come.

   Ransomware experienced its first period of significant growth between 2013 and 2016, when refinements to ransomware payloads, the emergence of virtual currencies, and enhanced anti-fraud measures from banks and cybersecurity vendors increased the profitability of digital extortion relative to other common avenues of cybercrime. What happened next remains unclear, but with more activity concentrating on ransomware, criminals appear to have learned how easy it was to extort organizations before piecing together how lucrative these attacks could be. Regardless, between 2016 and 2019, established cybercriminal gangs entered the targeted ransomware business en masse.

   From that point until the summer of 2021, cybercriminals invested growing time and resources to improve the targeted extortion model. During this period, digital extortion became more profitable because cybercriminal gangs and cybercrime markets reoriented around a near limitless demand for targeted ransomware. Moreover, as criminals learned how to best extract revenue from victims, they launched increasingly disruptive ransomware attacks.

    […]

   Even though it is tempting to hope that we are just one diplomatic agreement, one technological leap, or one regulation away from its elimination, targeted ransomware is here to stay. As with other forms of crime, the government can expect better outcomes by planning how to manage the issue over time rather than searching for quick and complete solutions.

Adapted from: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/08/Behind_the_rise_of_ransomware.pdf

   The story of the ransomware surge is the story of the discovery, professionalization, and growth of the targeted attack extortion model. Prior to 2016, most ransomware campaigns targeted a large and effectively random pool of end users. This “spray-and-pray” business model privileged quantity over quality, meaning ransomware actors spent less time focusing on how to apply pressure on a given victim and more time trying to reach as many victims as possible. Until the tail end of this period, ransomware did not generate enormous profits. Being a secondtier avenue of cybercrime, it failed to attract as much talent or activity as it would in the years to come.

   Ransomware experienced its first period of significant growth between 2013 and 2016, when refinements to ransomware payloads, the emergence of virtual currencies, and enhanced anti-fraud measures from banks and cybersecurity vendors increased the profitability of digital extortion relative to other common avenues of cybercrime. What happened next remains unclear, but with more activity concentrating on ransomware, criminals appear to have learned how easy it was to extort organizations before piecing together how lucrative these attacks could be. Regardless, between 2016 and 2019, established cybercriminal gangs entered the targeted ransomware business en masse.

   From that point until the summer of 2021, cybercriminals invested growing time and resources to improve the targeted extortion model. During this period, digital extortion became more profitable because cybercriminal gangs and cybercrime markets reoriented around a near limitless demand for targeted ransomware. Moreover, as criminals learned how to best extract revenue from victims, they launched increasingly disruptive ransomware attacks.

    […]

   Even though it is tempting to hope that we are just one diplomatic agreement, one technological leap, or one regulation away from its elimination, targeted ransomware is here to stay. As with other forms of crime, the government can expect better outcomes by planning how to manage the issue over time rather than searching for quick and complete solutions.

Adapted from: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/08/Behind_the_rise_of_ransomware.pdf