User:Kent3tres/sandbox

Article evaluation: "Public opinion on nuclear issues"

-Yes, everything was relevant. The only distracting aspect was the author lumped public opinion data on nuclear weapons into a broad category of “nuclear issues.” I think they should be separated to avoid confusion.

-The article is neutral. It presents evidence regarding public opinion of nuclear weapons as well as nuclear energy.

-7 out of the 17 citations were not working. The sources are reputable and support claims made in the article.

-The article is a part of “WikiProject Energy” and “WikiProjectEnvironment” and it is rated as “Start-Class” which classifies it as a developing article.

Below are the sources I will be using for my assigned article "NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)"

Week 7 assignment: What’s missing? Thoughts before drafting the new section.

The article that I am going to add information to is entitled “NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)” and more specifically adding to a subsection that discusses the public’s response to the NSA warrantless surveillance. I will be using a range of sources located in my sandbox to include public opinion polling conducted on how Americans view the trade-off between civil liberties and security as well as a scholarly journal entry that discusses the idea. I believe that the added information will provide useful information that will improve the quality of the article.

Wikipedia Article second draft: “NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)”

Adding subsection to “Public Response”

Title of subsection: The public’s view on the trade-off between security and liberty

The most recent (June 2015) poll conducted by Gallup asked participants if the US should take all the necessary steps to prevent terrorist attacks even if civil liberties are violated (30%) or take steps but do not violate civil liberties (65%)

According to Pew, the majority of Americans do not see a need to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to be protected from terrorism. A poll conducted in the Spring of 2014, showed that 74% of respondents said they shouldn’t renounce their privacy and freedom in the name of security, 22% of respondents said the opposite. In December of 2004, 60% of respondents said they shouldn’t renounce their privacy and freedom in the name of security.

Pew also noted that in their surveys conducted post 9/11 have revealed, that in the periods during which prominent incidents that related to privacy and security first came up, the majority of respondents favored a “security first” methodology, while maintaining that a dramatic reduction in civil liberties should be avoided. Recent events have often caused Americans to back minor steps by both the law enforcement community and the intelligence community to allow them to investigate suspected terrorists more effectively, even if those steps might infringe on the privacy of ordinary citizens. But the majority of respondents disagree with those steps when it translates into extreme intrusion into their lives.

Governments on the other hand believe that there is a justification for calling for a reduction in privacy protections because it increases security. Two rationales exist to explain this idea that by reducing privacy, security is increased and protection from future terrorist attacks also increases. The first rationale is that by reducing privacy protections it reduces obstacles that anti-terrorist agencies face when collecting domestic intelligence to foil terrorist attacks. The second rationale is that less privacy protections makes it increasingly difficult for terrorist groups to engage in clandestine activities that help facilitate an attack.