T

hough Facebook is the most 
commonly cited bad guy 
when it comes to misuse 
of its users’ personal information, 
especially in the wake of the 
Cambridge Analytica scandal or the 
recent breach affecting 50 million 
accounts, this week Google joined 
its ranks following a massive data 
exposure incident of its own.
The main issue with this recent 
data incident is not its size or the 
fact that it even happened at all. 
The ethical problem with Google’s 
treatment of this incident is that it 
withheld 
information 
pertaining 
to the safety and well-being of 
consumers’ data long after the 
incident had occurred. In the future, 
let us curtail the hegemony of these 
corporations and put more power 
in the hands of regulators and 
individuals to shift the balance and 
put users more in control over their 
own data.
In March of this year, internal 
investigators at Google found a 
software glitch in the Google+ social 
network platform that exposed the 
private information of hundreds 
of thousands of users. Google’s 
legal and policy staff at the time 
recommended not notifying users for 
fear of increased regulatory scrutiny 
and public backlash. Though the 
incident cannot be called a breach 
because there were no signs of abuse, 
it still shows negligence on the part 
of Google toward its users’ personal 
information. As part of the current 
response to the incident, Google has 
announced the closure of Google+, 
finally putting an end to its failed 
attempt at challenging Facebook as 
the dominant social platform.
So what exactly is a data breach? 
What companies are really trying 
to prevent in such an event is the 
infiltration of a computer network 
by 
either 
insiders 
or 
remote 
cybercriminals. In the case of 
Cambridge Analytica, Facebook — as 
a business practice — knowingly gave 
away the data of its users to a third 
party, whereas in the recent Google+ 
incident a privacy task force known as 
Project Strobe conducted a company-
wide audit of its software and found 
the bug in the Google+ code, which 
Google then decided to hide from the 
public.
The unfortunate truth is that 

data exposures are very difficult, 
if not impossible, to prevent. Every 
company that does business on the 
internet is vulnerable, and no matter 
how much companies spend, hackers 
always find a way. In a speech given 
last August at the University of 
Georgia, Rick Smith, former CEO of 
the credit agency Equifax, ominously 
said, “There’s those companies that 
have been breached and know it, and 
there are those companies that have 
been breached and don’t know it.” 
A few weeks later, Equifax reported 
to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission 
that 
the 
personal 
data of approximately 143 million 
U.S. consumers — including social 
security numbers, names, birth 
dates and more — had been stolen by 
hackers.
We cannot hope to eradicate 
cybercrime altogether, but it is 
possible for companies to be more 
transparent about how they process 
user data. Especially in the event of 
exposure, consumers should have 
the right to know if they are at risk. 
Furthermore, they should have the 
ability to manage what they share and 
how their information is transferred 
to third parties.
Thankfully, more oversight by 
consumers and governments seems 
to be the trend in the regulatory 
landscape. Under the European 
Union General Data Protection 
Regulation, “Data subjects” must 
provide “unambiguous” consent to 
collect and process personal data, and 
that consent must be free, correctable 
and reversible, meaning consumers 
can modify or even stop the collection 
of certain types of data. The new 
regulation also puts in place strict 
penalties for companies that do not 
disclose a breach within 72 hours. 
The strict rules of this legislation 
aim to give more control over the 
treatment of personal information to 
the user and hold companies more 
accountable in cases of negligence.
Another 
common 
theme 
in 
recent incidents of data exposure 
is large processors of data such 
as Facebook or Google exporting 
information to third parties without 
the knowledge of data subjects. In 
the case of Facebook, the political 
consulting firm Cambridge Analytica 
exploited users’ profile information 
to influence the 2016 U.S. election 

without the consent of users. After 
the scandal, Facebook CEO Mark 
Zuckerberg commented on limiting 
the access of its credential-based 
application programming interfaces, 
which makes user data available 
to app developers with the proper 
permission. The danger of loosely 
restricted application programming 
interfaces, especially those related 
to personal information, is that bad 
actors posing as app developers 
can gain access for unauthorized 
purposes.
While companies should not have 
to notify users of every single move 
they make, any transfer of their users’ 
personal data is worthy of notice. 
Consumers had no idea that any of 
these data transfers were taking place 
before it was reported in the news. 
Google, on the other hand, had been 
sitting on this information for months, 
perhaps waiting out the Cambridge 
Analytica firestorm. Companies have 
little incentive on their own to release 
this kind of information, so the fight 
for more transparency about use of 
personal data has to come from us, 
with the support of more stringent 
regulation such as the General Data 
Protection Regulation.
But relying on user consent poses 
practical problems. It would be 
extremely annoying to read over 
the terms and conditions for every 
new app, and that is exactly what 
companies want. We have been 
trained to accept everything and 
question nothing when it comes to 
the transfer of our sensitive personal 
information, but as a consequence 
we have given companies free reign 
to engage in whatever activities 
they want. In this unbalanced 
environment, governments must 
step in to reign in companies’ 
monopoly of control over personal 
information and be a defender of 
users. On a business-wide level, 
a data breach represents a public 
relations headache and the loss of 
revenues, whereas for individuals 
they can have life-changing effects. 
It is time that we acknowledge the 
misuse of our personal information 
by tech giants and strive for greater 
control of our digital lives.

T

wo years ago, the day after 
the presidential election, the 
atmosphere at the University 
of 
Michigan 
was 
astonishingly 
somber. Students and teachers alike 
were visibly upset, with some crying, 
and many unable to concentrate 
on class at all. It seemed as though 
every student was only talking about 
the outcome of the election and the 
impending inauguration. However, 
many professors chose to simply 
ignore that the election had happened 
and ignored the students who tried 
to discuss the election, going on to 
teach the class as though nothing had 
happened.
It’s likely that these professors 
did not want to discuss the election 
either because they were upset 
themselves and did not want to think 
about the outcome, or because they 
were happy about Trump being our 
president-elect and did not want to 
receive backlash from the students, 
who are largely liberal and anti-
Trump. However, I felt upset with 
my professors for not speaking about 
the election — I didn’t understand 
how they could pretend there was 
nothing happening when students 
were clearly upset and looking for 
some kind of reassurance from others. 
I feel professors have an obligation to 
address current events during class.
I don’t believe instructors who 
do not agree with me on political or 
social events should not speak about 
current events affecting students. 
When there was the contentious 
debate 
about 
whether 
white 
supremist Richard Spencer should 
come to the University to speak, only 
a few of my instructors spoke about 
the issue. While a couple of them 
expressed their disappointment in 
the University’s inability to deny 
Spencer the opportunity to speak on 
campus, one of my instructors told us 
he supported Spencer’s right to speak 
on campus in the name of free speech 
and asked us what we thought.
While I am a firm believer that 
Spencer, or any other figure who 
may seek to invalidate students’ 
identities and make them feel unsafe, 
should not be allowed to speak on 
campus, I appreciated that some of 
my instructors, including the one I 
disagreed with, acknowledged an 
issue that had been at the forefront 
of many students’ minds. Even 

if one of my instructors did not 
agree with me, his openness to 
discussing a contentious issue that 
affected students reassured me 
that he was willing to go beyond his 
obligation to teach us coursework 
and acknowledge certain events may 
affect his students’ mental health and 
ability to focus on the class.
I understand this might not 
be possible for certain classes: for 
lectures that have hundreds of people 
and are on a strict schedule, it might 
be hard to facilitate a short discussion 
about the many events that affect the 
United States. Smaller discussion 
sections and seminars might also be 
uncomfortable settings to discuss 
controversial events, because having 
a debate in classes with fewer people 
can feel uncomfortably intimate and 
awkward.
In addition, many students and 
instructors do not want to think about 
upsetting issues when attending 
class and would rather focus on their 
coursework and have a break from 
the political and social strife of the 
United States. In this case, perhaps a 
message on Canvas or an email would 
be a better option — however, even if 
professors do not choose to discuss 
every contentious event that occurs 
during the school year, it’s important 
professors ensure their students 
know they aware of impactful events 
outside of class. This way, instructors 
communicate to their students they 
genuinely care about events that affect 
students and their well-being, rather 
than just their academic performance.
A currently contentious topic 
among students is Brett Kavanaugh’s 
recent confirmation to the Supreme 
Court. None of my instructors have 
acknowledged that the confirmation 
even happened. One of my professors 
was very amenable to discussing 
it during office hours, and she 
acknowledged the situation while 
giving a trigger warning about one 
of our readings that had content 
involving sexual assault. If she hadn’t, 
however, I think the entire case would 
have seemed surreal because it’s so 
easy to read the news that affects the 
entire country, yet at the same time, 
feel isolated. While I did watch parts 
of the hearing, read the news and 
even watch the Saturday Night Live 
“Kavanaugh Hearing Cold Open” skit 
with Matt Damon, because none of 

the figures of authority in school were 
addressing the topic at all, it seemed 
as though the case wasn’t actually 
happening.
A reason most of my instructors 
have not discussed Kavanaugh at all 
might have to do with the current 
controversy involving U-M Associate 
Professor John Cheney-Lippold and 
Graduate Student Instructor Lucy 
Peterson. Both instructors refused 
to write recommendation letters for 
students who wish to study abroad 
in Israel and are being met with 
harsh criticism, both from the people 
affiliated with the University and 
from people who had simply heard or 
read the news. Despite the backlash, 
many 
people 
also 
believe 
the 
instructors had the right to refuse the 
letters, and the news sparked a debate 
in the comments section of various 
articles about the Israel-Palestine 
conflict.
Of course, it’s also possible that 
my instructors simply don’t have an 
opinion about the events occurring 
in the news, or do not feel as though 
they know enough to speak about 
it. However, it’s hard to believe they 
don’t know what’s happening, and 
it’s even harder to believe they don’t 
have an opinion. While it is their job 
as instructors to educate others, they 
also have an obligation to educate 
themselves, especially on events that 
affect their students both negatively 
and positively. Just as students are 
expected to be aware of events that 
happen outside of the classroom, 
instructors should also hold themselves 
to the same responsibilities.
There may be a whole myriad of 
reasons why instructors do not want 
to discuss current issues during their 
class, but it’s getting harder to act like 
nothing’s happening when there are 
so many changes happening, not just in 
the United States but also in the world. 
In order to be more in touch with their 
students and make them feel as though 
the school cares about how certain 
events may be affecting their mental 
health, it is imperative that instructors 
who have the most direct contact with 
students facilitate discussions and 
address events, as contentious as they 
may be.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman

Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

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.

ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors

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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

ALEX SATOLA | COLUMN

Protecting your personal information

I

n my capacity as a graduate 
student instructor of political 
science at the University of 
Michigan, I recently declined to 
recommend a student to a study 
abroad program in Israel. Before 
explaining this choice, here is a 
bit about me: My primary role 
at the University is as a student 
of political theory. In addition 
to my scholarship, I serve as an 
assistant teacher for courses in 
political science, an aspect of my 
education that I cherish. I am also a 
Jewish woman. My choice reflects 
my pedagogical commitments to 
educational equity, commitments 
that align with the University’s 
larger mission.
Israel routinely discriminates 
against 
and 
bans 
Palestinian-
Americans, which means many of 
my Palestinian students would be 
denied study abroad opportunities 
available to other students. I would 
not write a letter of recommendation 
for any program that discriminates 
and does not share the University’s 
commitment to equal opportunity 
for all community members. By 
choosing not to contribute to Israel’s 
discriminatory 
practices, 
I 
am 

defending equality and justice for 
Palestinians.
My action attests to my ongoing 
engagement with the theory and 
practice of social justice pedagogy as 
well as my concern for the injustices 
suffered by Palestinians. I have 
been trained at various teaching 
workshops, hosted under the banner 
of the University’s Diversity, Equity 
and Inclusion initiative, to teach in a 
way that supports all my students. In 
my classroom, I try to make as much 
space as possible for intellectual and 
political disagreement and for the 
voices of marginalized students. As 
University President Mark Schlissel 
and Provost Martin Philbert’s recent 
statement encourages, I actively 
work to create an “environment 
where everyone is given a chance to 
succeed”. In this instance, taking my 
training seriously meant that I could 
not support a program that was not 
equally accessible to all my students.
Supporting freedom, justice 
and equality for all is a Jewish 
value, 
and 
Jews 
everywhere 
should be free to criticize Israel 
when its policies violate these 
values. To be clear, the state of 
Israel and Judaism are not one 

and the same. Conflating Judaism 
and 
Israel 
marginalizes 
and 
erases those Jews, both Israeli and 
not, who do not feel represented 
by Israel. Furthermore, it does not 
acknowledge the many non-Jews 
living in Israel who are not treated 
as equals.
I chose to articulate my 
reasoning to this student rather 
than hide behind other reasons. 
I made this choice in the spirit 
of honest and deeply personal 
intellectual 
exchange. 
I 
take 
my role as an educator at this 
institution 
very 
seriously. 
I 
am 
committed 
not 
only 
to 
disseminating 
information 
as 
an expert but also to learning 
through my teaching. Thus, I treat 
my students with great respect, 
see them in many ways as my equal 
and approach their questions with 
honesty. In my own experience as 
a student, I have been empowered 
and inspired by teachers who 
have treated me this way. I am 
honored to follow their pedagogic 
examples.

Instructors, it’s time to speak up

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

Alex Satola can be reached at 

apsatola@umich.edu.

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu. 

B

rett 
Kavanaugh 
has 
now been sworn in to 
the 
Supreme 
Court, 
ending 
a 
lengthy 
and 
contentious 
nomination process. 
Now, the focus turns 
to a battle that voters 
will determine: the 
2018 
midterms. 
The day for which 
Democrats 
have 
longed, 
and 
many 
Republicans dreaded, 
since 
President 
Donald 
Trump’s 
election is now only three weeks 
away and the stakes are massive 
for both sides.
For 
the 
Democratic 
Party, 
the past two years have brought 
stunning 
electoral 
triumphs, 
including Doug Jones’s and Conor 
Lamb’s special election victories, 
as well as repeated legislative 
defeats, such as the Republican 
Party passing tax reform and the 
confirmation of two staunchly 
conservative associate justices to 
the Supreme Court.
Democrats, myself included, 
have long maintained that the 
majority of the country opposes 
Trump and Republican rule. We 
point to Trump’s 2.8 million vote 
deficit in the popular vote, his 
negative approval ratings and 
the public’s dismal view of his 
character. This belief has become 
the central pillar of Democratic 
opposition to Trump’s agenda. 
Should Democrats fail to make 
substantial gains in the midterms, 
this mantra will be dispelled, and 
gone with it will be the Democrats’ 
already limited ability to resist 
Trump’s agenda. Fair or not, this 
midterm cycle will be interpreted 
as a referendum on Trump’s 
mandate to rule. Put simply, 
Democrats cannot afford to lose.
Despite 
expectations 
of 
a 
blue wave, Democrats cannot 
merely rely on the historical 
trend of the opposition gaining 
seats during the midterms. Both 
parties 
gerrymandered 
the 
Congressional maps during the 
2010 redistricting process, but due 
to the GOP’s dominance of state 
legislatures, Republicans were able 
to gerrymander roughly four times 
as many districts as Democrats 

meaning Democrats will have to 
win many seats that have tilted 
right in recent years in order to 
retake the House of 
Representatives.
In 
the 
Senate, 
the 
Democrats 
face 
an 
extremely 
challenging 
electoral 
map. 
Democrats 
are 
defending 
26 
seats, 
compared to only nine 
for Republicans, severely 
limiting 
opportunities 
for 
gains. 
These 
structural disadvantages 
require Democrats to pursue a 
focused and deliberate strategy 
to retake the House and, at the 
very least, minimize losses in the 
Senate.
First, Democrats must suspend 
the intra-party civil war between 
the center-left mainstream and the 
more liberal populist wing. This 
conflict has raged rather bitterly 
for the past two years, from the 
election of a new Democratic 
National 
Committee 
in 
2017 
to primary battles throughout 
the past summer. Now that the 
primaries are over, Democrats 
must rally behind the party 
nominees. In 2016, a tenth of 
Bernie 
Sanders’s 
supporters 
ended up voting for Trump in the 
general election, which quite likely 
cost Hillary Clinton the election. 
Put bluntly, this cannot happen 
again. In competitive districts 
where 
mainstream 
Democrats 
defeated left-wing populists in 
the primaries, such as Kansas’s 
third district and California’s 
25th, progressives must swallow 
their pride and support the party’s 
nominee in November (the same 
goes for centrists in districts where 
progressive 
challengers 
beat 
establishment-backed candidates, 
such as New York’s 14th district).
From an issue perspective, 
Democrats would do well to keep 
the focus on Trump, immigration 
and health care, and away from 
the economy. Republicans’ failed 
attempt to repeal The Affordable 
Care 
Act, 
the 
separation 
of 
immigration families and the 
termination of the Deferred Action 
for Childhood Arrivals policy are 
among the GOP’s most unpopular 
initiatives; all are salient issues that 

will mobilize voters.
Though 
it 
may 
seem 
counterintuitive to deemphasize 
the economic issues, a recent 
Gallup poll found only 12 percent 
of the electorate believes the 
economy is the nation’s most 
important issue — the lowest level 
in decades. Furthermore, while 
the majority of gains from the 
GOP’s remastered tax code have 
gone to the wealthy, the economy 
is still very strong overall — and 
is perhaps the GOP’s best hope 
to preserve their Congressional 
majorities.
Interestingly, despite a strong 
plurality opposing the Senate’s 
decision to confirm Kavanaugh, 
the controversial vote does not 
necessarily help Democrats. In 
North Dakota, Democratic Sen. 
Heidi 
Heitkamp 
tumbled 
in 
the polls after announcing her 
opposition to Kavanaugh, shifting 
the race from a toss-up to a 
Republican lean.
Lastly, Democrats must appeal 
to 
independents. 
While 
the 
Republican base has coalesced 
around Trump and is even 
showing signs of enthusiasm 
for the upcoming elections, a 
majority of independents have 
remained 
decidedly 
opposed 
to Trump and his conservative 
agenda. Still, independents can 
be a fickle demographic and 
polls show a substantial portion 
are still undecided on which 
party to support this November. 
Left-wing enthusiasm is not 
enough given the structural 
disadvantages Democrats face, 
but if Democrats can capitalize 
on independents’ dissatisfaction 
and appeal to the center, they 
will have an excellent chance 
of winning back at least partial 
control of Congress.
For two years now, Democratic 
leaders 
and 
the 
left-leaning 
portion of the public have pledged 
an electoral firestorm in response 
to 
Trump 
and 
congressional 
Republicans’ 
policies 
and 
initiatives. The homestretch of the 
2018 midterms are here, and while 
the task ahead will not be easy, it’s 
time to deliver.

NOAH HARISON | COLUMN

Dems blueprint for 2018

Why I declined to write a letter of recommendation

LUCY PETERSON | OP-ED

NOAH 
HARRISON

Lucy Peterson is a doctoral student in 

the Department of Political Science.

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

