C

ollege students love their
themed parties — so when
Halloweekend
comes
around, many pull out all the stops
to dress in a multitude of dazzling
costumes that will inevitably end
up contributing to a never-ending
stream of Halloween posts on
Instagram. Some popular costumes
I spotted this year were boxers,
devils and, of course, all kinds
of feline ceatures. While these
costumes certainly were not very
original, I thought they were fun,
and the people wearing them
looked great.
In contrast, a costume that I did
not like was one I saw many people
wearing – a prisoner costume. Not
only is dressing up as a prisoner for
Halloween in poor taste, it’s also
incredibly offensive. An orange
jumpsuit isn’t some quirky, sexy
outfit that people should parade
around in for fun, and wearing it
while toting matching handcuffs
discounts
how
terrifying
and
degrading it is for many who actually
do get arrested and sentenced to
prison. Prisoners are real people,
many of whom have been unfairly
sentenced by a deeply flawed justice
system, and to wear the attire that
represents their sentence for the
sake of having a fun costume is
offensive. Conversely, dressing up
as prisoners and portraying them as
pitiable people is also problematic,
because that reduces all prisoners
to helpless populations rather than
individuals.
We can see how flawed the
United States justice system is when
we examine famous statistics and
cases: The U.S. has about 5 percent of
the world’s population but about 25
percent of the world’s incarcerated
population. Young white men like
Brock Turner are imprisoned for
only three months after sexually
assaulting an unconscious woman,
whereas young Black boys like
Trayvon Martin are shot (the
shooter
George
Zimmerman
found not guilty of second-degree
murder and manslaughter). Alice
Marie Johnson, a Black 63-year-old
woman, was only granted clemency
from a life sentence for a non-
violent, first time drug offense after

Kim Kardashian used her celebrity
status to appeal to the president.
This isn’t to say all police officers
are racist and violent and everyone
who is a part of the justice system is
corrupt. Of course there are plenty
of good people in the justice system
— but the flaws that plague it are
also plentiful and obvious.
So when people dress up as
prisoners
for
Halloween
and
pretend to get arrested for the sake
of some likes on Instagram, they
are making a mockery of actual

prisoners and how the justice
system has failed so many people,
even if they don’t mean to do so. It’s
not “just a costume” because of the
history of injustice that permeates
even to a fake prisoner’s jumpsuit,
and it doesn’t matter that the people
wearing such a costume don’t mean
to offend, because intent doesn’t
change effect.
A reason why people may believe
prisoner costumes are appropriate
may be due to the romanticization
of prison life in recent years. TV
shows such as “Orange is the
New Black” and documentaries
such as “Making a Murderer” are
incredibly popular, as are crime
shows. Jeremy Meeks, otherwise
known as “Hot Felon” or “Prison
Bae,” went viral because of his good
looks (and is somehow now dating
the heiress of TopShop). People
are intrigued by prison life and
the justice system because of how
mysterious and almost glamorous
the whole process seems. Is the
accused truly guilty? How can the
lawyers convince others of their
client’s innocence? People live out
their Nancy Drew and Sherlock
Holmes fantasies while they watch

murder mystery types of shows
and try to figure out the truth, and
shows like “Orange is the New
Black” offer them a glimpse into a
life they have always been warned
against
living.
Whether
these
shows mean to romanticize prison
life and the processes that occur in
the justice system, impressionable
viewers are free to perceive them
however they want to.
The
popularity
of
prison-
related media complicates the
question of whether dressing up
as a prisoner is acceptable when
we examine generic costumes
versus specific costumes. While
dressing up as a generic prisoner
is offensive, is dressing up as
Piper from “Orange is the New
Black” just as insensitive? This
is a bit of a gray area, because
dressing up as a specific character
means representing only that one
character rather than an entire
group of people, and those who
choose to put in the effort to dress
up as a specific character usually
tend to have a general respect
for that character that shows
in their costume. In this case,
the portrayal of the character
matters more than the character
itself: For example, dressing up
as a hyper-sexualized version of
Piper would be offensive, because
doing so would essentially turn
the costume into a caricature of
the character and implies Piper’s
life as a prisoner is glamorous.
Once again, the person shouldn’t
reenact any gory or sensitive
scenes for any reason, such as for
the sake of a “cool” photo.
In the end, it all boils down to
using good judgement. Halloween
should be enjoyable, and perhaps
taking care to not wear offensive
costumes takes away from that, but
wearing offensive costumes has
deeper, more hurtful implications.
It’s not difficult to make sure a
costume isn’t offensive, and the
payoff is well worth the effort. So
please, don’t dress up as a prisoner
for Halloween.

T

hose
who
share
my
concerns about the growing
dominance of technology
corporations know the major source
of their influence comes from data.
The usual suspects — Google, Amazon
and Facebook — would not be able to
reap such massive profits from their
services without the vast quantities
of data their users provide. The
unfortunate reality is tech companies
will not stop at the command of the
digital world; they want control of
where we live, too.
My latest fears stem from an
urban renewal project in Toronto’s
Quayside neighborhood managed
by Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary
of Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent
company, that purports to engage in
“urban innovation.” Just as the Google
search engine has fine-tuned the way
we research online, Sidewalk Labs
now aims to transform a decrepit,
flood-prone area in Toronto’s eastern
waterfront into a “smart city” that
will integrate data into the everyday
lives of its residents. Some of the early
proposals included self-driving cars,
sensors that measure air quality and
solutions pertaining to sustainable
building and energy use. Sidewalk
will also enlist the help of third-
party developers and consultants to
help with various tangible aspects of
the project. The initial illustrations
completed
by
Michael
Green
Architecture are, I will admit, very
appealing, though perhaps a little
imaginative.
Beyond
the
high-rise
timber
buildings and floating movie theaters,
however, lies a threat to the residents
of Toronto: mass surveillance and
retention of information. On the one
hand, Sidewalk claims it is working
closely with privacy experts and
the local community to make sure
people’s personal information is
protected. One of the supposed
guiding principles of the project
is “Privacy by Design,” a concept
developed in the 1990s by Ann
Cavoukian, the information and
privacy commissioner in Ontario,
that
prioritizes
company-driven
protection of personal information.
Sidewalk
invited
Cavoukian
to work with the team last year as
a consultant, but in October she
resigned to “send a strong statement”
about the prevalent data privacy issues

in the project. The reason for her
departure centers around access of
third parties to stores of “identifiable”
information collected as a part of
Sidewalk’s services. Obviously it
would be impossible to obtain
everyone’s consent for, say, CCTV
footage of pedestrians recorded
in order to measure foot-traffic
patterns, but in order to counteract
this type of situation Sidewalk says
it will use a slew of de-identification
techniques. However, while Sidewalk
has committed to de-identification
practices, it admitted it could not force
third parties to do the same. When
Cavoukian heard this in a meeting,
she packed up and left, saying, “I’m
sorry. I can’t support this. I have to
resign because you committed to
embedding privacy by design into
every aspect of your operation.”
It is a pretty bad sign for your data-
driven urban innovation venture
when one of the foremost data
privacy experts in North America
makes such a vote of no-confidence.
The former CEO of Blackberry Jim
Balsillie put his opinion in less neutral
language by calling the project “a
colonizing experiment in surveillance
capitalism.” Indeed, the privacy-
conscious minds in the tech industry
all seem to be thinking along similar
lines.
It all raises the question: Why would
Alphabet want to do this? Why make
an upwards of $50 million investment
in this seemingly random Canadian
neighborhood? The biggest reason is
data: Its availability offers immense
value to these types of companies.
The data to be mined in Toronto
represents trillions of dollars of
intangible assets that easily outweigh
any current or expected investment.
Hardly any actual opposition stands
in their way, and Sidewalk is taking
all the ground they can get in terms
of self-governing the entire project.
During the public announcement,
former Google Executive Chairman
Eric Schmidt touted the long-standing
goal for “someone to give us a city
and put us in charge.” Unlike elected
officials or government appointees,
there would be very little oversight
or
accountability
coming
from
regulators, let alone people living in
Quayside.
One way Sidewalk is confusing
their critics into submission is the

hijacking of data typology. Data
typology simply refers to the kind of
data Sidewalk is trying to collect, and
different types are subject to their own
level of regulatory scrutiny. In a recent
draft proposal, Sidewalk actually
creates a new type called “Urban
Data” for regulators to puzzle over.
The ambiguity of this term is further
complicated by the fact that it includes
data ranging from CCTV camera
footage to thermostat usage. Though
“data laundering,” whereby criminals
disguise the proceeds from illegal
activities by “mixing” it with money
from cleaner sources, is already used
in cybersecurity to describe the sale
of illegally mined data, the analogy
works well for the massive amounts
of data to be collected in Toronto,
too. Sidewalk is placing more benign
data types alongside more valuable,
sensitive personal information and
placing them all under the umbrella
of Urban Data with its own unique set
of rules. As long as Sidewalk has the
ability to set its own guidelines, it will
employ a healthy amount of obscurity
as a tool against regulation.
Another major issue with the
Toronto
project
is
the
role
of
intellectual
property. Though residents may
benefit from the amenities and quality
of life on offer, businesses that work
with Sidewalk may lose the ability
to license their IP externally. In July,
a “plan development agreement”
between Waterfront Toronto and
Sidewalk outlined how Waterfront
Toronto could benefit from a stake
in the project’s IP. Conversely, a
design-procurement
document
obtained by a Canadian news outlet
in August showed Sidewalk asking
potential consultants to cede their
IP rights, or at least to give them
exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide
license to the rights. Sidewalk’s
manipulation of other entities
— whether they be government
agencies, private companies or
the citizens of Toronto — shows
their unrestrained influence in the
project.
Whatever the outcome of the
Sidewalk
Toronto
project,
its
legal framework will serve as the
benchmark for future data-driven
urban innovation projects. Let it be a

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 12, 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

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

Romanticizing incarceration

The dangers of Alphabet’s data grab

ALEX SATOLA | COLUMN

Krystal Hur can be reached at

kryshur@umich.edu

Alex Satola can be reached at

apsatola@umich.edu.

L

ast week’s mass shooting
in
Southern
California
reminds us that we rarely go
more than a few months without a
gun tragedy in America. Though
purely criminal gun violence is
far too commonplace to receive
extensive
coverage,
schools,
places of worship, concerts and
pretty much anywhere else that
should be devoid of bloodshed are
periodically assaulted by firearm-
wielding
domestic
terrorists
or
psychologically
unhinged
chauvinists. In response to this
crisis, we often hear reignited
calls for incrementally stricter gun
regulations.
But, this time, we should instead
start with a thorough reevaluation
of the Second Amendment. As
its mere existence contributes
greatly to the current epidemic
of gun violence, and as it fails to
contribute to the greater security of
the American public, it is time to do
away with it completely.
Against the backdrop of today’s
gun problem, it’s hard to remember
50
years
ago
America’s
gun
violence reached a fever pitch. In a
killing spree that spanned less than
five years, assassins had brought
to the grave the president of the
United States, John F. Kennedy; his
brother and presidential hopeful
Sen. Robert F. Kennedy; and civil
rights hero Martin Luther King
Jr. What kind of nation, ailed by
slaughter of this degree, could
honestly pride itself in effective
governance?
In response, President Lyndon
B. Johnson attempted to tighten
restrictions on firearm purchases,
issuing a call for a national gun
registry and a license requirement
for all would-be gun owners.
These suggestions marked the
first major gun control legislation
opposed by the National Rifle
Association, whose evolution from
genteel promoter of marksmanship
to ideological lobbying machine
was sparked, in part, by the
domestic turbulence of the 1960s
and the credibility this lent to
more
aggressive
gun
control
efforts. Though these provisions
were successfully stripped from
what would later become the Gun
Control Act of 1968, the act was
nevertheless deemed by former
NRA President David Keene as
the “most restrictive piece of
Second
Amendment
legislation
ever
passed,”
foreshadowing
the emergence of a full-throated
and well-endowed gun rights
movement.
But for how vehemently the
amendment
is
attacked
and
defended
in
current
political
discourse, its purpose remains
widely misunderstood. Politicians’
campaign
ads
and
lukewarm
commentary
would
have
you
believe the Second Amendment
exists to serve the needs of
camouflaged sportsmen and over-
prepared homeowners, when in
reality it was written solely to

protect the concept of the militia.
Up until modern times, this
traditional reading of the Second
Amendment was reflected in a
deep American distrust of the
standing army, a necessary evil
the Constitution entrusted to the
federal government instead of the
states or people.
By
preserving
well-armed
militias,
the
authors
of
the
Constitution hoped to preempt
the tyrannical impulses of an
overarching federal government
and any outsize standing army
it
may
raise.
Until
recently,
however, this insurance policy
was not interpreted to protect the
individual’s right to bear arms. As
Richard Primus, a professor at the
University of Michigan Law School,
puts it, “The idea that the (Second)
Amendment is about an individual
right to own firearms, rather
than the allocation of defense
responsibilities between the states
and
the
federal
government,
is a modern re-reading of the
amendment.”
Perhaps there was once a time
where the provision of militias
protected the American public
from tyranny. The emergence of
a full-time, professional military
fighting force over the course
of
this
country’s
existence,
however, discounts the continued
justification for any traditional
reading of the Second Amendment.
For sake of argument, however,
let’s assume the NRA is right to
instead characterize the Second
Amendment as an “individual
freedom.” The revulsion with
which gun rights activists treat
one of the most prominent gun
control
proposals,
the
assault
weapon ban, henceforth becomes
all too understandable. In this
reading, the individual’s right to
revolt enshrined in the Second
Amendment does not only protect
the duck hunter’s double-barrel
shotgun or the concerned father’s
handgun, but it must also protect
the mass shooter’s AR-15 assault
rifle (with all of its military
features) and the like. For just as the
vastly powerful AR-15 parallels the
battlefield service rifles wielded by
the troops of our very own, outsize
federal army today, the archaic
muskets protected in the early
years of the Second Amendment
guarded their owners from the
federal armories of comparable
firepower.
To those concerned, mere rifles
could not sufficiently serve as tools
of revolt against a modern U.S.
military comprising tanks, drones
and
nuclear
bombs.
Consider
that
overwhelming
control
and subjugation hinges not on
annihilation, but on occupation of
the populace. Insurgents fielding
little more than assault rifles
against our own military have
indeed driven this point home over
the past 50 years.
Even so, the underlying rationale
of a right to revolt is flawed. If the

Second Amendment were the
only provision preventing our
functioning
democracy
from
plunging into a state of tyrannical
frenzy,
wouldn’t
the
healthy
democracies of Europe, with their
acute lack of similar liberties, have
descended into authoritarian rule
by now? It is not unreasonable to
conclude
American
democracy
has instead been preserved by
institutions such as separation of
powers, checks and balances, free
and fair elections and civilian rule—
institutions that, unlike a right to
bear arms, define democratic rule.
Additionally, there are costs
associated
with
the
Second
Amendment, and an informed
public has the right to consider
them.
No
right
exists
in
a
vacuum, and those enshrined in
constitutional amendments are no
different. Indeed, as a plethora of
research has shown, any benefit
derived from a right to unfettered
civilian armament fails to outweigh
the costly damage this armament
inflicts on American society. From
our country’s insatiable saturation
with
guns,
to
the
uniquely
American ease with which these
devices find their way into the
hands of dangerous, untrained and
suicidal individuals, it is no wonder
we live in a steady state of firearm-
fueled chaos. Children in a first-
world country should not have to
train for gunmen to interrupt their
elementary school math class.
This violent American reality,
unparalleled in other developed
nations,
necessitates
sensible
restrictions
to
be
placed
on
which Americans, under what
circumstances, can obtain lethal
weapons. While repealing the
Second
Amendment
would
not preclude state and local
governments from upholding the
legality of guns for home defense
and hunting, it would invalidate
the NRA’s stated raison d’être
and thereby allow these sensible
restrictions to be seriously debated,
considered and passed by our
legislative bodies.
The
prominent
political
assassinations of 1968 parallel
our own gun crisis today, as the
relatively limited scope of those
tragedies did nothing to limit the
horror and subsequent outrage
they
delivered.
The
powerful
influences that stymied effective
change then are also at work now,
and ensure the continued survival
of a gun crisis in America. As was
the case in 1968, the role of the
government is to restore public
safety in the most effective way
possible without putting individual
liberties at risk. Doing away with
the Second Amendment is the
ideal and obvious solution to this
dilemma. What is there left to
consider?

ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN

The obvious solution

Ethan Kessler can be reached at

ethankes@umich.edu.

An orange
jumpsuit isn’t
some quirky,
sexy outfit

MAECY LIGHTHALL | CONTACT MAECY AT MAECYL@UMICH.EDU