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.