Assignment:
This reading was hard to understand and comprehend. I do not understand, based on the author's definition, what "thinkable" is. I took from the reading that "thinkable" decisions are decisions with a concrete and definite answer. A thinkable question is not one that is rhetorical. If I'm incorrect, please explain and I will resubmit the post.
Since the issue I chose was transparency, in the broader sense, my issue is not thinkable. The benefit of transparency (or refusal to be transparent) is based on the agenda of the party seeking to share or withhold information. For example, we will take on releasing bodycam footage after an unfortunate incident with a police officer. For the general public, immediate release is beneficial. Their agenda is to hold an officer accountable for misconduct, poor decision-making or bring to light the consequences of poor practices and procedures. On the other hand, the decision to withhold that information can be for the safety of that official (to prevent doxxing). This also goes to the release of classified information. Access to classified information is granted in order for you to perform a job. When you find that you disagree with that information or that job, quit. There are a number of avenues to separate from military service.
When trying to determine a way to make my issue thinkable, the best thing I can come up with is drawing it down to a specific agency. For example, creating information release policies for a specific public safety agency, like the KCMO Police Department. Maybe making it so that the information is available, but you have to come to the Police Department to view it and it cannot be taken out. This and enforcing laws on people when they release PII on a person involved in an incident. Even this will not prevent doxxing, since the internet is the medium of anonymity.