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