T
he Bird scooters that
dropped in Ann Arbor
this
September
and
have
continued
to
flock around campus
are really akin to
the common pigeon.
They
populate
the
sidewalks in droves
and weave in and
out
of
crowds
of
pedestrian students.
They
have
their
typical nesting areas,
practically
stacked
on top of each other
outside of the MLB, Ross and
other places that are just a bit
too far from the other side of
campus. City officials have
tried to control them, but still
they zip and zoom in every
direction. They have become,
at the same time an exciting
new mode of transportation
and a menace to society, but
what Bird riders may not
realize is how the scooters
might be feasting on their
data.
Bird, a startup out of Santa
Monica, connects its electric
scooter service to a free app
on your phone. Once you have
downloaded the app, uploaded
your
payment
information
and a snapped a picture of
your driver’s license, you are
ready to ride. The rides cost
$1 per ride plus $0.15 per
minute and have become a
source of transportation for
the awkward “last mile” of
the urban commute where a
destination is too far to walk
yet not far enough to drive.
Bird’s environmental mission
is to provide cities with a
clean, car-free transportation
alternative.
Though a majority of the
data
security
issues
that
I
have
written
about
are
tied to the internet and the
regulation
of
firms
that
operate on the digital sphere,
with the prospect of “smart
cities” and data-driven urban
planning, it is important that
we turn our attention to “the
internet of things.” Simply
put, this concept is the idea
of connecting any and every
possible device to the internet
to
streamline
its
use
for
consumers and more easily
configure the data for the
companies that provide the
service.
Bird doesn’t just collect data
from mobile phones, however
— the scooters themselves
are prodigious data collection
machines,
specifically
for
highly valuable location data.
The company automatically
collects
the
precise
GPS
location of its scooters, the
routes riders take and the
rental status of its scooters.
The information collected is
also directly associated with
a user’s individual account,
making it possible for Bird
to “personalize” content for
a specific user in the form of
reports, recommendations and
feedback according to user
preferences.
In its Privacy Policy, Bird
makes
sure
to
distinguish
between
the
personalized
content that they
provide
based
on
individual
users
and
the
“anonymous
or
aggregate
information”
that
they are able to use
for “any purpose.”
The
personalized
content establishes
the
connection
between Bird and
its
e-scooter
enthusiasts,
however, this aggregate data
is also of huge value to cities,
developers
and
businesses
vying to apply the analysis
of
usage
patterns
to
the
development of their smart
city initiatives. The wording
of “any purpose” also implies
the wide scope of Bird’s ability
to use its data in any way it
wants.
Because Bird claims to be
playing a role in shaping the
green cities of tomorrow, it
should be as open as possible
with its aggregate data. It
has actually been pretty good
about this, providing cities
with its GovTech platform
that monitors how citizens
are
using
the
scooters
and putting forth possible
solutions
for
unwanted
activity.
For
example,
geofencing will notify riders
of locations in a city where
Birds
are
prohibited,
and
the Community Mode allows
individuals to report incidents
of unsafe activity or poor
parking.
We should also stop and
think, despite the supposed
inherent value of Bird’s data,
whether scooters really are
a viable alternative for “last
mile”
transportation.
From
a sustainability perspective,
riding
an
electric
scooter
uses only 1 to 2 percent of
the carbon dioxide emissions
that driving a car the same
distance does. The individual
consumer
choice
is
never
that
simple,
though,
and
Bird introduces extraneous
costs that the average rider
doesn’t think about. All the
scooters have to be rounded
up by trucks overnight and
charged by workers with their
own vehicles. In addition,
these fun new scooters might
be replacing lower emission
options
such
as
walking,
riding a bike or using public
transportation. There is just
not enough data right now
beyond the extrapolations of
e-scooter companies to judge
their long-term environmental
impact.
Beyond
aggregate
data,
regulators should also curtail
the amount of unnecessary
personal
information
that
Bird is collecting from its
users. Bird uses persistent
data tracking to record every
move riders make from the
moment they get on a scooter
to the moment they get off,
meaning that if you took a
scooter to a protest, a religious
service or a sensitive medical
appointment,
the
scooter
would know. Bird is operating
under the assumption that
people
want
extremely
personalized experiences on
their scooters, when in fact
most riders just use their
services to get from point A to
point B.
The
company
could
still de-identify all of the
precise GPS data and use it
to achieve the goal of a city
with fewer cars, but it would
be hard to convince Bird
executives to do this because
the
data
would
suddenly
lose
commercial
value
to
advertisers. There is no need
for the Birds of the future to
suggest possible destinations
based on my preferences; I
am just trying to get to class.
The data that Bird collects
might also fall into the hands
of governments attempting
to use the technology to
surveil their citizens. Bird
says loosely that it shares
its data based on the “good-
faith” belief that such action
is necessary to comply with
the law, leaving this transfer
of personal data including
photos and GPS tracking up to
its discretion.
It also seems that Bird
doesn’t
prioritize
data
protection
overall.
In
the
brief section on “How we
protect your information” in
its Privacy Policy, Bird says it
takes measures to protect user
information while also forcing
the
user
to
acknowledge
that Bird cannot guarantee
the
transfer
of
personal
information and that it is all
“at your own risk.” Essentially
Bird reserves the right to do
whatever it wants with the
information you provide, and
if anything goes wrong it’s
your problem. The rules are a
bit more stringent concerning
international users, especially
for European Union data on
subjects
living
under
the
umbrella of the General Data
Protection Regulation.
As with any tech startup
claiming to offer revolutionary
new services for cheap, the
value and concern lies in
data. Scooters are fun, but
the data security challenges
surrounding
them
could
become a pest.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, November 27, 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
Are Bird Scooters flying away with user data?
ALEX SATOLA | COLUMN
Alexander Satola can be reached at
apsatola@umich.edu.
W
e lay on the carpet
floor, our beds, the
couch, sit around
the table and sigh.
Oh, how we long
to
be
in
loving
relationships.
It’s
that time of year
when my friends and
I fantasize about the
people who we wish
to meet, the ones
we are longing after
and those who were
just not right for us.
When will we meet
someone new who will change
and impact the rest of our
lives as we know it? Recently,
I realized I spend a lot of time
having conversations with my
friends about the existing or
nonexistent romantic partners
in our lives.
Sometimes, it’s really fun,
and we talk about all the
good things happening with
those we are seeing or how
we love our single life. Other
times, we laugh at each other’s
horror stories and cry over the
heartbreak. But either way, my
friends and I are constantly
asking
each
other
about
each other’s love lives and
relationships or lack thereof.
This
Thanksgiving
Break,
it was a common part of the
conversation when catching
up with friends and family.
It almost came up more than
how school was going, my
social life or my career and
post-graduation plans.
I wasn’t shocked my friends
and family brought it up,
because I often ask them the
same.
There
is
something
exciting
about
learning
about the emotional lives of
our loved ones. But people
tend to only pique interest
in this type of relationship.
For example, wouldn’t it be
ridiculous if my family or
friends talked about my best
friendships with the same
seriousness as they would
about romantic relationships?
For
instance,
imagine
if
they asked if my friend was
meeting my emotional needs,
how our communication was
and if I saw our friendship
long-term. It sounds pretty
silly, and it shows how much
interest we have in romantic
relationships.
Our
society
highly
values
these
romantic
relationships,
and lately I have
been noticing the
pressure we get from
our media to have
these
experiences.
There
is
the
classic narrative in
romantic comedies
and
princess
stories
of
heteronormativity, where a
man shows up solving all of
the woman’s problems and
they can now be happy for the
rest of their lives. This could
be a driving force in why
women feel like they should
want to be in a relationship
and why we are all so obsessed
with
talking
about
these
relationships.
Women
have
been taught to think being
in a relationship is going to
complete us and make our
lives better. We are taught we
can only see our worth if there
is a man present, which gives
men a lot of power.
Romantic
and
sexual
relationships are important
because they can add some
positivity to life, like having
someone who is there for you,
who lifts you up and is your
partner at the end of the day.
But one’s problems are not
going to be solved because one
now has this partner. Also, in
romantic comedies the female
characters are very dependent
on
the
male
characters.
Our media needs to portray
confident independent women
who make things happen and
do not wait for a man. Women
who put their needs, wants,
passions and careers before
the subject of their love life.
I know this is a common
feminist rant about seeing
more
complex
storylines
for women and created by
women. But the only way we
are going to see a change in
the content that is created
is
if
these
storylines
are
created by the people who
actually
experience
them.
Ultimately, if men with the
power are creating the media
women consume, they are
fostering
this
obsession
with relationships and the
expectation
of
what
we
should be. We need to see
more storylines about young
women who do more than just
fall in love. Women deserve
to learn from a narrative
that their interests, passions,
careers and who they are as
a person are so much more
important than if they are in a
relationship.
I see my friends and me
falling into toxic conversations
during which we discuss our
relationships
first
before
we even bring up anything
about ourselves. We all have
other things happening in
our lives that have so much
more importance, which we
should be highlighting and
sharing with one another.
Relationships are crucial and
fun to talk about, but so are
our friendships; these should
be equally as important to our
romantic relationships.
This
cuffing
season,
let’s try to not get caught
up in the toxic messages
and
conversations
about
relationships. Let’s focus on
bettering ourselves. Let’s talk
about our present and future
goals, passions, interests and
careers. When you are ready
to be with someone, make
sure that they complement
the already amazing life you
have and the person you are
without them.
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN
Relationship remixed
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu.
ELLERY
ROSENZWEIG
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
We are taught we
can only see our
worth if there is a
man present.
— Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in a statement defending the federal
judciary after President Trump called a judge “an Obama judge”
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
We do not have Obama judges
or Trump judges, Bush judges or
Clinton judges. What we have is an
extraordinary group of dedicated
judges doing their level best to
do equal right to those appearing
before them. ”
ALEX
SATOLA
It seems that Bird
doesn’t prioritize
data protection
overall.
JILLIAN LI | CONTACT JILLIAN AT LIJILLI@UMICH.EDU