4
Thursday, May 18, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
I
n my participation in the never-
ending
American
consumer
competition
of
material
acquisition, I recently purchased a
fitness tracking smart watch that
not only monitors my semi-decent
heart rate, but also tracks and maps
my outdoor workouts through GPS
technology. I enthusiastically wear, use
and check this watch with nearly every
activity I’m doing.
And as I write this very article with
said digital monitor fixated to my right
wrist, I continue to willingly submit
myself to the ever present surveilling
technology that continues to grow
within our lives. Technology that
destroys the concepts of privacy and
solitude in the name of comfort and
security. For I willingly wear a watch
that knows where I go, is connected
to a phone that knows what I say, and
uploads my data to a laptop that knows
who I am.
A
recent
article
in
Fortune
highlighted
the
consequences
associated with the blind enthusiastic
use of technology. The article detailed
a speech given by Microsoft CEO
Satya Nadella on how modern tech
companies should understand and
avoid the development of creations with
serious society altering side effects.
“Technology could be used to create
an endless wave of distractions for the
public, leading to people living ‘without
meaning or purpose’. New societies in
which glowing screens could be “used
to control and dictate” the masses
would become reality.
This obligation of the immensely
wealthy tech companies to ensure the
input of morality into development is
truly impossible. The advancement of
technology by profitable businesses
only spurs the creation of more
products such as the smart watch or
virtual reality headsets. We as a species
have already entered into a world of
almost total reliance on ever present
and intelligent digital technology
— which has also invaded our most
precious forms of privacy.
Yet no government forced such
products upon us. No authority
dictated the necessity of home
security cameras linked to our
iPhones, or smart watches which
track our every move. We have done
so willingly. We ourselves are guilty
for allowing the invasions from
surveillance, not through force or
coercion, but subtle enticement with
the seemingly endless gratifications
offered
from
an
ever
present
technology.
Smart phones can predict our
decisions, watches track our heart
rates and fitness patterns, multiple
computers, laptops, and tablets flatter
us by knowing our shopping habits,
TV shows and favorite websites — all
of it willingly embraced by us who
knowingly expose ourselves to such
invasive surveillance.
Professor
Bernard
Harcourt
detailed this submission in his book
Exposed, “In our digital
frenzy to share snapshots and
updates, to text and video chat with
friends and lovers, to ‘quantify’
ourselves,
we
are
exposing
ourselves—rendering
ourselves
virtually
transparent
to
anyone
with
rudimentary
technological
capabilities”
And
these
advantages
are
all
completely superficial, temporary, and
more importantly, the sheer magnitude
of the costs of such actions are not
readily understood. For we now live
in “a new virtual transparence that is
dramatically
reconfiguring
relations
of power throughout society, that is
redrawing our social landscape and
political possibilities, that is producing
a dramatically new circulation of
power in society”. Our willing exposure
has created this circulation of power,
a circulation that places capitalist
telecommunications
companies
and
powerful governments at the top, while
further enticing the American people
into believing fitness trackers are worth
the total surveillance.
And what exactly are the costs
to our privacy? What is the point of
ensuring the protection such rights?
The values of solitude and privacy
allow for individuals to be able to
escape the observation of others to
both understand the most personal and
private of emotions and to experiment
with and ponder new ideas. There is a
paramount importance to protecting
these abilities for they allow for new
forms of human expression to able to
be created free and untainted from the
influence of capitalist marketing and
the oppressive security apparatuses of
intrusive governments.
And the power to think for one’s
own self is central to the progression of
society. Privacy allows for individuals
to be able to silently challenge the
ideas of rulers, kings and masters. The
NISA KHAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SARAH KHAN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
DAYTON HARE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
The dangers of technology
comfortable and secure solitude that
forces the mind to ponder the status
quo allows of the growth of progressive
ideas. Freedom, liberty, democracy,
destiny — all concepts developed and
grown by human beings having the
ability to challenge their rulers free
from surveillance or observation.
The modern American state now has
the ability to undermine such freedoms
that is sought in secure silence. The
ever present technologies now invade
these once private realms. It does not
take a creative mind to imagine how
history would have been altered if
oppressive leaders in the past had the
surveilling capabilities of the present.
The Civil Rights movement, workers’
right and the women’s movement — all
would have been monitored, observed
and likely repressed.
Therefore,
the
necessity
for
privacy, for individuals to challenge
the status quo is paramount. With
the current political climate within
the United States, multiple injustices
require progressive challenges and
independent thinking towards the
status quo. Issues such as income
inequality, racism, sexism, homophobia
and many more all require free thought
and experimentation that cannot
be undermined by an oppressive
government.
And despite these strong opinions
I have towards the dangers of
technologies and the necessity of
privacy, I never took my smart watch
off my wrist while writing this article, I
checked my twitter three or four times,
and I sent this piece to my editor over
an email sever that I am more than
confident the NSA has taken a glimpse
at.
I love my new watch.
—Michael Mordarski can be
reached at mmordars@umich.edu.
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Ibrahim Ijaz
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Anna Polumbo-Levy
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
C
ollege in 2017, it seems, is
not quite the place for a
hopeless and somewhat
obnoxious romantic like me. Ever
since the ripe age of 10 years,
I’ve clung to a certain idealism,
assuming myself the heroine of
the cheesiest and most dramatic
love stories. In the words of my
now boyfriend, I am “dramatic
AF.”
Though
my
current
relationship
is
hardly
the
fairytale
love
story
of
my
childhood dreams, I’ve learned
to recognize the elements that
mark it just as romantic —
which, to me, seemed “normal”:
high school classmates, best
friends
first,
honorary
old
married couple.
I thought what I had was
standard, that everyone else
was just as devout an idealist
as me. In fact, hookup culture
and online dating were cornered
off into the back of my mind,
acknowledged only by TV shows,
movies and memes I saw purely
as entertainment. It took me
months into college to realize
how wrong I was.
To be clear, this is not in
reference to frat party hookups
and dorm-room flings (though
their prevalence came as a shock
to me as well). My romantic
standards were for those who
were looking not for one-night-
stands, but for the companionship
and connection of a relationship.
Thus, it was seemingly out of
nowhere that a dating app I’ve
known of — but never registered
as a reality — found its way into
every crevice of my social life:
Tinder.
It’s no secret that Tinder is the
classic “hookup app,” but for some
indeterminate reason, it gave me
another
negative
connotation.
I’ve always imagined the typical
Tinder user as a desperate, lonely
40- or 50-something who was
past his/her sexual prime, with
no other means of kindling a new
flame. Hence, it seemed foreign to
me that it was so popular among
college kids who could, in theory,
easily and innocently stumble
upon a love interest simply by
stepping outside (at such a large
and busy university, no less!).
I watched, minorly astonished
and majorly confused, as my
friends swiped left on the guys
who weren’t “cute enough,” and
right on the ones who “were.” As
they compared their “matches”
established solely upon mutual
attraction to six edited photos. As
they flirted online, met a select
few in person and were crushed
when their knight in shining
phone screen was looking for
none other than — you guessed it
— a hookup.
—Angela Chen can be reached
at angchen@umich.edu.
Finding love in a hopeless place
ANGELA CHEN| COLUMN
Read more at MichiganDaily.com