A

s a columnist writing 
about digital governance 
and 
data 
security, 
I 
sometimes wonder if 
my readers actually 
care 
about 
what 
happens to their online 
personal information. 
Amidst 
all 
of 
the 
recent 
headlines 
about 
cybercrime, 
data 
breaches 
and 
data exposure, it is 
hard to come to grips 
with what is actually 
at stake. These events 
seem far off and abstract, and the 
chance of it happening is so slim 
that it could never happen to you, 
right?
To some degree, this view 
is pretty accurate. According 
to Facebook’s second quarter 
earnings report that came out in 
July 2018, there were about 2.23 
billion monthly average users 
of the social network. During 
the recent data security breach 
Facebook reported to its users 
this September, the company 
reset the access tokens for over 50 
million affected accounts, as well 
as 40 million additional accounts 
as 
a 
precautionary 
measure. 
The 4 percent of users who did 
receive a security message should 
consider themselves unlucky, but 
on the whole they did not have 
much to worry about. As of now, 
Facebook reports that no private 
messaging was accessed, and 
no credit card information was 
stolen. Instead, hackers exploited 
a vulnerability in the social 
network developer’s application 
programming interfaces, which 
allows software developers to tap 
into Facebook’s data. The hackers 
stole information linked to a 
user’s profile page such as name, 
hometown and gender.
Although 
Facebook’s 
reputation suffered as a result 
of the incident, Facebook users 
like you and I walked away 
from the incident unscathed 
and 
ultimately 
indifferent. 
There wasn’t a renewal of the 
#deleteFacebook movement that 
drew so much attention after the 
Cambridge Analytica scandal, 
and the coverage on national news 
networks 
was 
overshadowed 
by updates on the Kavanaugh 
confirmation. That being said, 
there is a chance something like 
this could happen again, and 
affected users should consider 
themselves lucky — but not too 
lucky — it was not much worse.

Do 
you 
have 
personal 
information online hackers could 
use to steal your identity? The 
answer 
is 
probably 
overwhelmingly “yes,” 
and the fact is this 
actually happens all 
the time. The Identity 
Theft Resource Center 
reported there were 
1,579 data breaches 
in 2017. In addition, 
about 
14.2 
million 
credit card numbers 
were exposed in 2017, 
an increase of 44.7 
percent from the year prior, as 
well as around 158 million Social 
Security numbers exposed, an 
increase of over eight times the 
figure in 2016.
The numerous data breaches 
are alarming not only because 
of the sheer number of people 
affected, but also due to the high 
growth rate in the prevalence of 
such devastating events. Credit 
card fraud, which usually involves 
a single credit account, is serious, 
but identity theft can be much 
more damaging. When a hacker 
steals your identity, they can 
destroy your financial security by 
opening multiple lines of credit, 
ruining your credit score and 
making it nearly impossible to get 
a loan or apply for a new card. If 
you are still not convinced data 
breaches represent a real problem 
for society, then I have some 
unfortunate news that may hit 
close to home. In 2017, the state 
of Michigan was ranked number 
one for highest per capita rate of 
reported identity theft, with 151 
complaints per 100,000 residents. 
If you seek a pleasant peninsula 
that 
protects 
your 
personal 
information, 
look 
elsewhere 
(perhaps Florida, which comes 
in second at 149 complaints per 
100,000).
Do you care about democracy 
and 
the 
upcoming 
midterm 
elections? If so, data security is 
even more relevant to you. Last 
spring the country was inundated 
with 
news 
surrounding 
the 
political 
consulting 
firm 
Cambridge Analytica and its 
misuse 
of 
Facebook 
users’ 
personal information to influence 
the 2016 presidential election. 
The researchers at Cambridge 
Analytica 
used 
information 
gathered 
from 
a 
personality 
quiz to scrape private data from 
profiles of people who took the 
quiz as well as their friends. This 
data was then used to market 

sometimes 
racist, 
xenophobic 
and 
anti-immigrant 
messages 
directly to users based on their 
constructed psychological profile. 
Facebook permitted this, and 
has since shut the service down, 
but the fact that it was going on 
at all is cause for concern. The 
lack of understanding, oversight 
and control users have over their 
personal information is nothing 
but daunting.
Despite the massive imbalance 
between big tech companies and 
us, there are a few ways users 
can assert a bit more control over 
their digital presence. The first 
way is to write to your senator, 
congressman or elected official to 
do something about it. As of today, 
there is no single, overarching 
data protection legislation in 
the United States. Instead, data 
protection is regulated using a 
tangled web of state and federal 
laws, with the FTC primarily 
overseeing “unfair or deceptive 
practices” related to personal 
information. 
In 
response 
to 
recent data abuses by Silicon 
Valley, Senator Mark Warner, 
D-Va., is fighting vehemently for 
more stringent regulation for 
“information 
fiduciaries” 
who 
hold large amounts of user data.
There 
are 
also 
behavioral 
changes you can make to better 
secure your accounts. Create 
a strong, unique password for 
every new account you make, and 
change it now and then — wouldn’t 
it be disastrous if one hacked 
account led to all your accounts 
being hacked? Take the time to 
read security alerts. Research 
a good password manager that 
can help you stay organized and 
protect your information. In 
short, take whatever small steps 
you can to ensure what you put 
online is a little bit safer.
But all of that is up to you. The 
best case scenario is that you will 
never experience a hack and enjoy 
your time on the internet with no 
problems at all. The worst case 
scenario is that by 2040 quantum 
computers will break the internet 
as we know it and render all of our 
information totally unprotected. 
In the meantime, though, let us 
all make an effort to be more 
attentive towards our precious 
personal 
information 
so 
we 
can enjoy whatever time on the 
internet we have left.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Monday, October 29, 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

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

Leading the free world
P

resident Donald Trump 
has finally called out Saudi 
Arabia for the assassination 
of Jamal Khashoggi earlier this 
month. Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident 
and Washington Post columnist 
living in exile, was gruesomely 
murdered while visiting the Saudi 
Arabian consulate in Turkey. The 
sloppy hit, almost assuredly ordered 
by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince 
Mohammed Bin Salman, elicited 
sharp international condemnation. 
In the weeks since, Saudi Arabia 
has awkwardly tried to dodge 
accountability for the operation, first 
denying that Khashoggi died inside 
the consulate, then claiming his death 
occurred accidentally during a fight 
and now blaming his death on rogue 
actors within the state’s security 
apparatus.
For American observers, outrage 
at the assassination and shoddy cover-
up was coupled by disbelief as Trump 
for weeks refused to acknowledge, 
much less condemn, Saudi Arabia’s 
brazen and appalling abuse of power. 
Trump originally criticized other 
countries’ and corporations’ swift 
criticism of Saudi Arabia and floated 
the “rogue killers” theory that 
Saudi Arabia later came to adopt. As 
corporate and political leaders around 
the world withdrew en masse from a 
planned Saudi investment conference, 
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin 
reaffirmed his plans to attend. It 
took another week of feet-dragging, 
during which Trump dispatched 
multiple officials to meet with Saudi 
and Turkish officials, before Trump 
finally cancelled Mnuchin’s trip and 
issued a clear denunciation of the 
killing.
To be fair, the president’s 
eventual 
condemnation 
of 
the 
assassination is a welcome reversal, 
but his delay in doing so reinforces his 
administration’s troubling reluctance 
to call out the autocratic nations. If not 

checked, Trump’s continued public 
admiration for some of the world’s 
most ruthless dictators threatens to 
degrade the United States’ status as 
preeminent leader of the free world 
and dilute American support for 
democracy and human rights abroad.
Trump has consistently praised 
dictators and expressed respect for 
their style of rule both during his 
campaign and after taking office. 
Alarmingly, Trump doesn’t just flatter 
America’s autocratic allies — some of 
his most effusive praises are reserved 
for hostile adversaries. In 2017, Trump 
invited President Rodrigo Duterte of 
the Philippines to the White House 
and characterized his crackdown 
on drugs, which has consisted of the 
extrajudicial killings of thousands, 
as a “great job.” In a June 2018 
interview, Trump downplayed North 
Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s brutal 
repression of his people, instead 
referring to him as a “tough” and 
“very smart” leader. And of course 
there is Trump’s frequent praising 
of Russian President Vladimir Putin, 
whom he has called “far more” of a 
leader than former President Barack 
Obama.
Contrast those statements with 
the criticism and vitriol, often trade-
related, that Trump has tossed 
at democratic allies. He’s called 
Canadian Prime Minister Justin 
Trudeau “dishonest” and “weak,” and 
critiqued German Chancellor Angela 
Merkel’s immigration policies, which 
have little to no effect on the United 
States, as “insane.”
However, it is unrealistic to 
perpetually criticize or disassociate 
with every state that restricts political 
freedoms or violates human rights, 
especially in the Middle East. Saudi 
Arabia is a key strategic partner 
and collaboration with the Saudi 
government is crucial to pursuing 
our interests in the region, namely 
suppressing terrorism and countering 

the influence of hostile states such 
as Iran. The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet 
is headquartered in Bahrain, which 
certainly contributed to the U.S.’s 
silence when the autocratic kingdom 
ruthlessly crushed a popular uprising 
in 2011.
The bottom line is that being one 
of the world’s largest superpowers 
necessitates 
cooperation 
with 
unscrupulous states who don’t share 
our values. But this doesn’t require 
us to ignore the most egregious 
violations, such as the Khashoggi 
killing, nor does it require America 
to abandon its commitment to 
promoting democracy around the 
world.
This 
commitment 
isn’t 
just 
implied — the State Department’s own 
mission statement is to “Create a more 
secure, democratic, and prosperous 
world for the benefit of the American 
people 
and 
the 
international 
community.” America’s record of 
supporting democracy worldwide is 
far from sterling, especially during the 
Cold War era, when the U.S. routinely 
supported authoritarian states in 
order to counter the influence of 
the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the 
goal of democratizing the world and 
protecting human rights is still a 
worthy one that should be pursued 
when at all possible, which is why 
Trump’s repeated praise of dictators 
is so alarming. The U.S. prides itself 
on being the leader of the free world, 
and even though many on the left 
believe that mantle has been passed 
to Merkel, they still hope to reclaim 
it following Trump’s presidency. 
Trump, and his successors, would be 
wise to realize that it is hard to be the 
leader of the free world if you do not 
show any interest in promoting a free 
world.

Why you should care about personal data

ALEXANDER SATOLA | COLUMN

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

Alexander Satola can be reached at 

apsatola@umich.edu.

TALIA KATZ | OP-ED

On Pittsburgh and anti-Semitism
F

our years ago, Jordan, my 
big brother, graduated from 
the University of Michigan 
with a degree in economics and 
moved to Pittsburgh. He relocated 
to a strange new city where he did 
not know a soul. One of the hardest 
experiences for Jews living away 
from family and friends is the Jewish 
high holidays. Luckily for Jordan, 
though, the Tree of Life synagogue 
opened its doors, giving him a warm 
community and a place to pray.
This past Saturday, a deranged 
man entered that same synagogue 
during morning services, shouted 
“All Jews must die!” and took 11 lives 
of that same community.
People are quick to universalize 
this 
tragedy, 
posting 
about 
gun control, white supremacy, 
nationalism and the like. But we 
need to pause and address the root of 
this hate crime: anti-Semitism.
There is no denying that anti-
Semitism has plagued our world for 
millennia. Jews have been expelled 
from countries more than a hundred 
times. From the Spanish Inquisition 
to the Crusades and the Holocaust, 
Jews have been targeted and 
slaughtered. From the Black Plague 
to the infamous Dreyfus Trial and 
Nazi Germany, Jews have been 
blamed for societal ills and others’ 
misfortunes.
Despite 
generations 
of 
persecution, 
genocide 
and 
expulsion, what has ensured the 
Jewish community’s survival is a 
goal-oriented determination, rooted 
in individual responsibility and 
chutzpa (a Yiddish word meaning 
“shameless 
audacity”). 
After 
experiencing the worst systematic 
genocide in human history, the 
Jewish community launched an 
attitudinal revolution against its own 
unhappy past. Survivors sought to 
erase the image of the “ghetto Jews,” 
willingly accepting their demise. Out 
of this tragedy emerged the Jewish 
state of Israel, which is now one of 

the most prosperous and forward-
thinking nations in the world.
Despite 
the 
deep-seeded 
hatred for Jews across the globe, a 
sentiment of strength and communal 
perseverance has and must continue 
to direct the Jewish community. I 
therefore do not want to participate 
in the ongoing competition for “most 
victimized group” and undermine 
others’ oppression.
What I want to highlight, 
though, is the blatant double 
standard both in this community 
and in the mainstream media.
All 
manifestations 
of 
Islamophobia and racism are evil 
and unacceptable, and journalists 
should continue to expose these 
hateful acts. However, hate crimes 
against 
Muslims 
are 
reported 
more than twice as much as those 
against Jews. Without adjusting 
for population size, though, the FBI 
reports twice as many hate crimes 
against Jews (684) than against 
Muslims (307). 2016 FBI data shows 
Jews are three times more likely 
than African Americans and 1.5 
times more likely than Muslims to 
be a victim of a hate crime.
The Anti-Defamation League 
2017 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents 
found the number of anti-Semitic 
incidents in the United States rose 
57 percent in 2017. In fact, Jews 
experienced more religious-based 
hate crimes than all other religious 
groups 
combined. 
Despite 
its 
prevalence, anti-Semitic incidents 
are still grossly underreported.
Anti-Semitism is not just a 
characteristic of fringe groups. In 
fact, it comes from the far left, the far 
right and everywhere in-between.
Prominent religious leader Louis 
Farrakhan repeatedly calls Jews 
“termites” and “Satanic.” Last year’s 
“Dyke March” in Chicago asked 
Jewish participants to leave because 
they displayed a Star of David on their 
pride flags. Georgia Congressman 
Hank 
Johnson 
called 
Jewish 

Israelis “vermin” and “termites.” 
After protestors marched through 
Charlottesville yelling “Jews will not 
replace us,” our president declared 
there were “some very fine people on 
both sides.”
I could also explicate the 
rampant anti-Semitism in Europe 
and Islamic countries, but then this 
article would become a book.
I do not seek to minimize the 
suffering of other discriminated 
communities. All manifestations of 
identity-based hatred and violence 
should and must be addressed. 
However, Jewish identities are 
excluded from social justice rhetoric 
and today’s trendy doctrine of 
intersectionality. Outside of the 
Jewish community, the relative 
silence is deafening.
This past Sunday, Holocaust 
survivors 
and 
their 
children 
traveled to Ann Arbor to tell their 
stories to students. One participant 
was afraid to go inside the building 
because 
the 
luncheon 
lacked 
armed security. The United States 
is no 1930s Europe, but Jews who 
escaped gas chambers and death 
camps should not continue to live in 
fear because of who they are.
If you want to address identity-
based hatred, then do not ignore 
anti-Semitism. 
This 
festering 
disease is too prevalent to overlook.
In light of the tragedy in 
Pittsburgh, 
though, 
religious 
leaders, both Christian and Muslim, 
have fundraised and lent their 
support to the Jewish community. 
Just as the Tree of Life synagogue 
treated my brother like family, so 
has Pittsburgh’s Christian and 
Muslim community treated its 
Jewish neighbors.
We should similarly treat all 
persecuted minorities like brothers 
and sisters in times of vulnerability.

ALEX
SATOLA

Talia Katz is a senior in the Ford 

School of Public Policy.

L

ast year, as a freshman, 
I was so focused on 
receiving good grades 
that I often prioritized my 
academic 
performance 
over 
having fun. As a result, one of 
my goals for this year is to attend 
more events, rather than simply 
attending class and sometimes 
venturing to the library when 
I want a change of scenery 
for studying. So far this year, 
I’ve attended comedian Hasan 
Minhaj’s “Before the Storm” 
show at the Michigan Theater, 
author Viet Thanh Nguyen’s 
lecture 
titled 
“Race, 
War, 
and Refugees” and an Eagles 
concert last week in Detroit. I 
also purchased a ticket to attend 
“A Conversation with Michelle 
Obama” in December.
Attending all these events 
has led me to notice there are 
rarely any people who come 
alone. While I did see a few 
people who didn’t appear to be 
with any friends or family, most 
people came with at least one 
or two other companions. This 
makes sense, considering how, 
nowadays, almost every event 
seems to be a social one — there 
are people who are reluctant 
to even go to the bathroom by 
themselves. However, I think 
that there is value in going to 
events without other people.
I attended Minhaj’s show 
alone. None of my friends 
really knew who Minhaj was (a 
travesty!), so I felt bad asking 
them to purchase a ticket to 
see him. While I was initially 
worried about going alone, I 
found going by myself ended 

up being more enjoyable than 
if I had gone with a friend. I 
not only got someone to trade 
tickets with me so he could sit 
closer to his friends, resulting 
in me moving from around the 
19th row to the fourth, I was 
also able to truly focus on the 
show. I didn’t have to worry 
about whether my friend was 
also having a good time or 
feel obligated to interact with 
another person. I left the show 
feeling glad I came alone. This 
led me to attend Nguyen’s 
lecture alone, and I had a 
similarly positive experience 
there.
I 
went 
to 
the 
Eagles 
concert with my family, and 
the experience was far more 
stressful and complicated than 
going to the Minhaj event. 
Before I went to see Minhaj, 
all I had to do was purchase 
the ticket, go to the venue and 
find a seat. For the concert, 
however, I had to find four seats 
together in a section everyone 
was fine sitting in and check 
with everyone to make sure 
their schedules were free the 
day of the concert. The day of 
the performance, all of us had 
to wait for each other to finish 
getting ready, and once we 
finally got in the car and arrived 
at the venue, we all had to wait 
for each other when we ordered 
food or went to the bathroom. 
During 
the 
performance, 
I 
had to listen to my family 
members try to talk to me when 
I just wanted to focus on the 
performance, and there were 
times when I tried talking to 

them when they just wanted to 
focus on the performance.
However, I am still glad I 
didn’t go to the Eagles concert 
alone, because I think concerts 
are 
much 
more 
enjoyable 
for people when they have 
companions who aren’t afraid 
to dance and sing along with 
them. I probably would not 
want to attend a sporting 
event without a friend, either, 
because cheering alone can feel 
awkward. In addition, going to a 
venue far away and late at night 
can be dangerous for people 
going alone.
While 
these 
are 
among 
several valid reasons for not 
wanting to go to an event alone, 
feeling as though attending 
an 
event 
alone 
is 
socially 
unacceptable or doomed to end 
in boredom is not an acceptable 
reason. As harsh as it may 
seem, the truth is that being 
around friends or family can 
be annoying, and being alone is 
often the least stressful option. 
Because I didn’t know any of 
the 
other 
people 
attending 
Minhaj’s show or Nguyen’s 
lecture, I had an anonymity 
that allowed me to keep mostly 
to myself and focus solely on the 
performance.
In short, not every event 
needs to be a social one, and 
it’s OK not to be surrounded 
by a gaggle of friends wherever 
you go. Sometimes, the best 
company is no company at all.

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

Leave your friends at home

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu.

