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