Ideally, leaving our personal information in the hands of government for the benefit of greater security seems like it holds reasonable ground. However, in the article written by Daniel J. Solove, Solove makes a solid argument in the fact that personal privacy is not always respected in times of turmoil. If we are to give up our personal, private information for this purpose of greater general security, where does our private information really go? We must question who - and what - is guarding our information, and to what extent this information is being protected and what it is being used for. Without questioning government of their motives with our private information, our privacy cannot be assured. Also, in the event of a security leak, one must question implementations in place to retrieve such private information. The “Luddite” Argument that Solove brings up is interesting as it literally applies to our beings as an individual. Rather than simply being information on paper, this information applies to real physical attributes. If such characteristics including eye pattern, fingerprints and voice were to be in criminal possession, it is almost worse than written data as these traits are not something that could be changed or altered. Acquiring such delicate information could lead to even more extreme security precautions, making the government an ultimate database of personal and private information. The value in giving up this much private information is polarizing, but at this point it seems that the negative aspects may indeed outweigh the positives.

In reading “Once Upon A Time” I found that I understood the story quite well. I was able to comprehend the underlying message of the story and what the author was trying to portray. I did not use any reading strategies, but I think that in future I will so that I can be more familiar with the overview of the written work after I am finished reading. When the class talked about the story, I did not even pick up on the ‘fairytale’ element, to be honest. As soon as it was brought up it seemed like a very clear and purposeful part of the story. Obviously that is something that I missed. Generally, I thought I did quite well. I enjoyed the story, and the way the author portrayed the overall message.

In the wake of such insanity and discrimination to the LGBT community of Russia, Stephen Fry’s opinion of boycotting the 2014 Olympic games, held in Sochi, is far from absurd. Russia’s government has blatantly separated a group of people who have committed no crime and have shown no reason to be publically humiliated and punished. These people have been attacked simply because of their sexual orientation, an aspect that has virtually no effect on the well being of others. One must question as to how a government can make a decision like this and proclaim that it is political, and not personal. It is personal. It directly relates to a single group of people; it is discrimination. Being that Russia has displayed this extreme lack of tolerance it is not just for other countries to support this action by traveling to Sochi to compete. While these countries may claim that they are pro-LGBT, competing in Russia will simply show the opposite.

Mr. Fry makes a valid point that the actions of Russia are eerily similar to those of the German government during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Jewish people were beaten, murdered and humiliated by the Germans, as well as not being allowed to compete in the Olympic games. While one could argue that the extent the Germans went to in regards to eliminating the Jewish people is far beyond the extent the Russians are taking on the LGBT community, this action represents the same motive. The actions against the LGBT community of Russia will only worsen while these unjust laws continue to be enforced.