Introduction
In this lesson, you'll examine a case where poorly developed software or data implementation caused serious problems. Write/discuss from a factual and critical perspective. Analyze the major player(s) in relation to an ethical theory. Counter another student's analysis with more research.
Case List
Pick a case to study from the list below (scroll through the many choices).
Or, view
IEEE Spectrum's
2021 Cybersecurity and IT Failures Roundup.
Your Analysis
Start writing in a word processing document to synthesize what you learned about the case. Use research, including what you find in the SmartNews feed, library journals, broadcast news, etc.
- In the first line of your post, state the name of the case you're writing about.
- In paragraph 1, describe and cite one of the major players in the case. Who did what when, how, and why?
- In paragraph 2, name, cite, and describe at least one law or regulation that was broken in the case.
- In paragraph 3, describe and cite the positive OR negative consequences of that person's actions in relation to historical, political, and economic perspectives.
- In paragraph 4, analyze the person's actions using one of the ethical theories or approaches ...were they morally and ethically justified or not? Cite the theory/approach.
- Check the word count (150+ per paragraph, not counting the author names or article titles).
- Check the hyperlinks (they must be in article titles, law names, or theory/approach names).
- Spellcheck, fix grammar, then Ctrlc or ⌘c to copy the paragraphs.
- Click the Chapter 3 Examine a Case Discussion in Canvas.
- Ctrlv or ⌘v to paste the copied text into a Reply thread (click the Reply field to activate the editing box).
- Save your thread.
Your Counter-argument
Before the Available Until date, reply to at least one person's thread:
- In paragraph 1, discuss a counter-argument related to their analysis of the case. Describe and cite at least one article that supports your argument (unrelated to the theory).
- Choose a different topic to counter. The counter-argument should not focus on the same information you provided in your own initial post.
- Check the word count (150+ not counting the author names, article titles, or repetitious thoughts).
- Save your thread.