Sunday, March 6, 2016

When To "Post" Wolf :0

Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant in the USSR that exploded and released radiation in the air. This tragic accident caused the death of hundreds of people and affected others for the rest of their lives. This terrible accident was made known to the public way too late after the surrounding cities were affected.

Should have the USSR released the information of the crisis earlier so that other's could have fled? Or were they wise in attempting to control the problem before letting other's know?

There are effective tools that are available to give information to the public. Through news channels, online and through social media. Sharing information is easy and spreads like wildfire. Communicating ideas, crowd sourcing, and collaborating for projects are easier than ever. However who draws the line as to what information is pertinent to the public and what should remain secret?

Edward Snowden was a NSA consultant who lived in Hawaii. While working for the NSA he found certain classified information and programmed that was being implemented that seemed against the human rights stated in the first amendment.

Edward Snowden used the internet to publicly post all of the secret activity of the NSA that was violating the privacy of all American citizens. Was Edward Snowden ethical in his executive decision for the American citizen?

Should we all be more transparent and have free communication among people and organizations? Or should we all respect each other's privacy?


  1. Your use of an older example (Chernobyl) coupled with a more recent example (Snowden) helps me as a reader understand the importance of the questions you are raising. As to the answer, I believe many would agree that the decisions or privacy versus transparency should be decided based on the number of people and gravity of effects. In other words, how many are affected if either decision is made, and what are these consequences?

  2. I don't really get the title. This does frame a contemporary issue using history. However, where is the personal angle? Right now the topic is a bit broad. If you personalize it this may help to sharpen the focus. As you draw upon and refer to contemporary authoritative sources, this will give your argument more teeth. Here is one such contemporary source.

  3. I like your connection between the cases of Chernobyl and Snowden. I think that with a little more development, this will make a compelling argument. If I were not familiar with either Chernobyl or Edward Snowden, I would want more details so that I could understand the relevance of the topics in question. Why didn't the Russian government do anything? What exactly was the NSA doing? Answering questions such as these will help give your topic relevance to the reader.