Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 14, 2019

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

Erin White

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

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

R

apid development in
Ann Arbor and other
areas
of
southeast

Michigan has led to increasing
friction between humans and
their animal neighbors in
recent years. Coyote attacks
on cats and dogs are on the
rise in the metro Detroit area.
Despite
both
controversial

culls and sterilization efforts,
the Ann Arbor deer population
has at best plateaued. And
every few winters, as the sky
darkens,
students
are
left

aghast as crows take to the
skies over campus.

Every autumn, as other

birds fly south for the winter,
thousands of American crows
make their exodus from the
fields and forests of rural
Washtenaw
County
and

migrate to Ann Arbor for the
winter. Their bodies create a
black blanket spread across
trees, historic buildings and
anything else they can perch
on. From the Huron River and
Forest Hill Cemetery to North
Campus,
through
Central

Campus and the Diag, to
the student houses on South
Campus, the crows reign.

Their numbers fluctuate

wildly from winter to winter.
The
National
Audubon

Society
records
nearly

30,000 birds some years, and
barely 1,000 in others (during
their annual Christmas Bird
Count),
with
population

booms
and
crashes
often

occurring cyclically.

The
2017
count
was

relatively
low
at
only

3,133 crows, compared to
the previous year’s 9,972.
Though the 2018 Christmas
Bird Count data is not yet
available, it is safe to assume
based
on
historical
data

and the opinions of anyone
who
walks
along
North

University Street early in the
morning that this year’s crow
population is much higher.

Concern
and
interest

surrounding these birds is
nothing new. They have been
the source of satire and news.
In 1997, Cynthia Sims Parr,
a
University
of
Michigan

alum and professor at the
University of Maryland, wrote
her doctoral dissertation on
Ann Arbor’s crow population.

Relations between humans

and these avian neighbors
have not always been kind.
Crows are known to attack

humans, particularly during
nesting season. Though these
attacks are rare, they are on
the rise in many urban areas
around the world. They are
also thought to be vectors
for the spread of diseases
including West Nile virus and
prion diseases.

Some
blame
crows
for

property damage, particularly
to historic buildings. Others
fear the eerie and foreboding
atmosphere they create on
long, unlit walks home late at
night.

Some
individuals
have

taken action into their own
hands. These efforts have
gone so far as to require
Michigan’s
Department
of

Natural Resources to send
officials to Ann Arbor to
investigate mass poisonings

of birds in 2008 and 2009.

The
University
of

Michigan has used a variety
of methods over the years to
attempt to deal with crows,
including the use of a flare
gun analog, none with any
real degree of success.

Many
other
academic

institutions
face
similar

issues with large bothersome
crow
populations.
Penn

State
University
employs

loud speakers and fireworks
to
scare
crows
off
their

campus, with limited and
often short-lived success. At
the University of Indiana-
Bloomington,
students

and faculty alike regularly
attempt to dodge defecating
crows as they walk across
campus. The University of
Pittsburgh
uses
speakers

playing
great
horned
owl

calls to scare crows away
from high-trafficked areas of
campus.

Airports and caretakers

of
historic
government

buildings have often taken
a different approach: using
falconers
to
scare
away

crows and other birds away

from areas where they may
cause harm. Unlike the use
of speakers imitating birds of
prey, having trained falcons,
hawks, owls and other birds
fly around has proven to be
an effective way of dealing
with this problem. While
crows quickly realize that
there are no predators when
sound systems blare, they
quickly fly from falconers, as
they know death is imminent.

A
more
sustainable

alternative
to
controlling

the crow population would
be
actively
aiding
the

rehabilitation
of
native

populations of birds of prey.
In
recent
years
breeding

peregrine
falcons
have

started to move into areas
by both Central and the
Medical Campus. This could
in part explain why the crow
population’s peaks no longer
reached the heights they used
to. A potential side effect to
increasing the local number
of birds of prey, however,
is that our campus’ beloved
obese squirrels may turn into
easy snacks for them.

LSA Student Government

and
Engineering
Student

Government
passed

resolutions in winter 2016
asking the City of Ann Arbor
to investigate the issue of
crow populations on and near
campus. The Central Student
Government also discussed
the
matter
that
semester.

However, as far as is publicly
known, no action has come
following those initial efforts.

The way the city and the

University choose to address
this issue sets a tone and
spirit for how to address other
issues
pertaining
to
local

wildlife, the environment and
the community at large.

To not address it establishes

a laissez-faire attitude toward
this and other similar issues.
To
use
non-sustainable

methods
would
signal
an

adversarial relationship with
the
environment
at
large.

To use sustainable methods
would signal a willingness
to find long term solutions to
issues that work in harmony
with the environment, rather
than against it.

Nicholas Fadanelli is a Rackham

student and former LSA Student

Government President

CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
Why paying people for their data isn’t empowering
L

ast week we learned that

Facebook and Google

have been paying people

for access to almost

all
their
personal

data. Both companies

employed
research

programs that paid

participants
as

young as 13 years old

up to $20 per month

for access to their

private
messages,

photos, emails, web

history and location

data.
Facebook

also
requested

screenshots
of
participants’

Amazon shopping history.

I’m
not
shocked.
That

would
be
naive.
Programs

like these are the obvious

next step in our data hungry

world. A number of startups

have emerged promising to

empower individuals to “own

their own data” and connect

them with organizations who

want to pay for it.

Often
data
monetization

proponents justify the practice

by portraying it as a choice.

For example, Facebook has

defended
their
program,

saying users were aware of

what
they
were
gathering

and
compensated
for
their

participation.
Essentially,

Facebook argues participants

made an informed choice to

hand
over
intimate
details

about their private lives for

$20 per month.

The
problem
with

the
choice
argument
is

that
without
protections

for
individuals
and
clear

enumerations of the rights they

possess, there may be no real

choice at all. Users frequently

don’t understand what they are

agreeing to when they hand

over data and the pressure of

potential compensation may

influence people’s decisions.

Furthermore,
who
enforces

this exchange? Who ensures

your data is being used as

promised? What sort of rights

do
you
have
to

dictate how your

data is used and if

it is resold? Should

certain
types
of

data
never
be

for sale? We lack

the
regulatory

frameworks

necessary to even

begin
answering

these questions.

If pay for data

programs
are

allowed
to
run
unchecked,

there could soon be two worlds

of technology use: one for the

rich and one for everyone else.

The rich will be able to resist

the extra flow of money — a

little additional cash won’t

be enough to convince them

to let companies into their

private lives. The same won’t

be true for everyone else. As

much of the world loses any

sense of privacy, the privileged

will enjoy the benefits. Better

voice assistants, more relevant

recommendations, and quicker

commutes – all built on the

personal data of the masses.

Companies will profit from

unprecedented
targeted
ad

opportunities. Without steps

to ensure privacy is a right

instead of a privilege, the gap

between the rich and poor will

widen further.

To
avoid
the
dystopian

future presented above, the

U.S. should codify the data

rights that individuals possess

and implement a regulatory-

enforcement
system
to

uphold
those
rights.
Only

after
that
can
individuals

represent
themselves
fairly

in
any
data
monetization

interaction. Outlawing pay for

data programs isn’t realistic

or
necessarily
desirable,

but we can help ensure the

exchange
is
fair
by
truly

empowering individuals with

privacy
standards
in
their

best
interests
and
holding

companies
accountable
for

unethical practices.

The ideal system is one in

which
procedures
involving

personal data are similar to

the current procedures for

research on human subjects. In

research with human subjects,

participants
must
clearly

understand the process and

its
potential
consequences.

Additionally,
research
is

audited by an Institutional

Review Board charged with

protecting the welfare, rights

and privacy of human subjects.

If a similar system was

implemented
for
the
data

economy, we could preserve

innovation
while
protecting

individuals.
Your
level

of
privacy
would
not
be

determined by your level of

privilege, and you could make

true, informed choices about

when you give up that privacy.

Companies would still have

avenues to collect valuable

data, but we could ensure

citizens are not manipulated

for
intrusive
digital

experimentation.

Empowering
individuals

to control their data is a

noble cause, but monetization

without
a
general
privacy

framework
may
have
dire

consequences. Without proper

protections,
the
vulnerable

may be exploited under the

guise of free will — pigeonholed

into transforming their most

personal
information
into

fuel for the digital revolution.

Monetization may be a useful

tool someday, but before we

answer basic questions about

data privacy, it’s a harmful

mirage.

NICHOLAS FADANELLI | OP-ED

The perennial invasion of crows

I

n the midst of the Syrian
refugee crisis, I watched
helplessly
as
my
aunt

and three cousins escaped the
turmoil and violence of our
motherland in small plastic boats.
They braved the unknown of
the Mediterranean Sea on their
journey to freedom, to only later
continue on this journey with
weeks of smuggling starting from
Greece to their final destination of
Germany.

Months later, I sat on the floor

of Chicago O’Hare International
Airport for hours, awaiting the
arrival of my other Syrian aunt
who was later detained and
unlawfully sent back as Trump’s
infamous “Muslim Ban” was
signed while her flight was in the
air.

While the countless stories I

heard and heartbreak I saw from
family, friends or the media were
dismaying, these events in my
own family were my personal
turning
point
in
rethinking

the U.S. approach to Syria. As
the daughter of two Syrian
immigrants,
I
learned
about

American politics through the
broken U.S. immigration system.
Who is it that fills these gaps or
fixes the flaws that were evident
in the policies that dictated the
entirety of my family’s structure?

Growing
up
as
a
Syrian

American, especially as a first-
generation American, it’s often
hard to take a genuine interest
in a system that you feel is pitted
against you and your family. My
parents instilled in me a desire
to not only utilize my voice by
being an active citizen, but also
to simply care about politics. My
concern stems from my familial
attachment to the issue, but
the segment of the American
population that claims to care
about Syria and the refugee crisis
needs to show it.

As we near the 2020 presidential

election, the evaluation of the
candidates becomes especially
pertinent.
Syria
and
its

humanitarian crisis has been a hot
button issue for many progressive,
liberal-leaning individuals. While
care and compassion are essential
and the first step in providing
valuable institution-wide change,
such energy must be matched
with effective political actions.

Since President Barack Obama’s

admission of regret towards his
inaction in Syria, it has become
evident that the United States
— specifically its commander-in-
chief — cannot stay silent over
such humanitarian crises. Many of
the 2020 Democratic candidates,
including Sen. Cory Booker, Sen.
Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth
Warren have emphasized their
desire to withdraw from Syria as
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad
continues
to
commit
mass

genocide on the Syrian people. As
a leading world power, the United
States
faces
a
responsibility

to support and advocate for
humanitarian efforts.

U.S.
Rep.
Tulsi
Gabbard,

D-Hawaii, recently announced
her run for the 2020 Democratic
nomination.
Gabbard
is

infamously known for going to
Syria meet with Bashar al-Assad,
claiming that she was “skeptical”
over his involvement in deadly
chemical
attacks
on
Syrian

civilians and that there are “a
number of theories” over what is
going on in Syria.

Gabbard followed her meeting

with the introduction of her “Stop
Arming Terrorists” Act. After
dehumanizing
the
atrocities

occurring
against
innocent

civilians as simply a matter of
al-Assad’s secularist government
versus Islamic State rebels, she
urged Congress to stop using
taxpayer money, both directly and
indirectly, to fund groups allied
with
terrorists
organizations

attempting to overthrow the
Syrian government.

The deaths of real people, the

life-threatening escape of my own
family members — and millions
like them — is not an issue of
theories or speculation. Gabbard’s
blatant ignorance characterizing
the humanitarian crisis in Syria
as a mere bilateral issue becomes
increasingly alarming to Syrian
Americans like myself who are
watching the erasure of the
realities of the war crimes being
committed daily in Syria. And
because
these politicians are

not alone in their indifference to
Syria, I feel my fears of the world
forgetting about Syria becoming a
palpable reality.

While
Democrats
and

Republicans
alike
continue

to express their views on the
refugee crisis — whether for or
against increasing the number of
immigrants Trump allows into
the U.S. — the reality is that this
problem stems from a need to fix
issues on a systematic level within
Syria.

Whether we look at Germany

as a model for their refugee
integration system or remodel
our own current system, the
concern on a presidential level
for action in Syria is vital to fixing
this humanitarian issue. As we
move closer to the heated 2020
presidential race, it is crucial to
question the rhetoric on Syria that
these candidates are expressing. If
we, as Americans, want to continue
having an opinion on the refugee
crisis, we must also have an opinion
on Syria and our country’s role in
combatting oppression.

MARIA ULAYYET | COLUMN
Screening for Syria in the 2020 presidential election

Maria Ulayyet can be reached at

mulayyet@umich.edu.

Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be

reached at chandrn@umich.edu.

Non-sustainable
methods would

signal an adversarial
relationship with the

environment

CHAND RAJEN-

DRA-NICOLUCCI

As we near the 2020

presidential election,

the evaluation of the

candidates becomes

especially pertinent
LENA SISKIND | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LENASISK@UMICH.EDU

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.