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.