When 2016 could have been like 1984 > Apple standing up against the pressure of FBI is a critical moment for our future Elliot Chan Opinions Editor lash back to New Year’s Eve 1983, when Apple released one of the most monumental and memorable commercials to date. The ad depicted a heroine charging at a Big Brother-like figure, an homage to George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, witha hammer. The heroine ends up throwing the hammer at the figure and the figure erupts, and then words appeared on the screen: “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce the Macintosh. And youll see why 1984 won't be like Nineteen Eighty-Four.” We all celebrated. On February 16, 32 years after the commercial aired, Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote a letter to his customers, raising a lot of concerns and showing how close we were to losing our privacy, just like the characters from Orwell’s fiction. The technology company was receiving external pressure from the US government to build a backdoor to customers’ personal devices. This backdoor would enable government officials—under specific protocol and significant measures—to access data by bypassing security. In another word, the FBI would have been able to access your iPhone if they were “suspicious” of you. Cook wrote in his letter that such a backdoor does not currently exist, and that they don’t intend to build one, despite the government’s pressure—and pressure from many fearful citizens. The risk is far too great. The slope is far too slippery. One thing will lead to the next and before you know it, the government will have access to all the data we keep in our devices. We keep a lot of data in our devices. Creating this backdoor is undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction to the countless terrorist attacks that have taken place on US soil recently, because terrorists use the same technology we do and need to communicate with each other to orchestrate attacks. However, to simply give up our rights to privacy within our personal communication channels would be a victory for the terrorists. They want us to take extreme measures. They want us to turn the lens upon ourselves. The world does not become safer because of heightened monitoring. It becomes more paranoid. I remember years ago when cameras in public places was a big controversy. Now, it is the norm. But those cameras are stationary. They don’t travel with us. They are not an extension of who we are. We don’ share our intimate moments with those cameras. Our devices, on the other hand, are in a sense our other hand, and to have the government forcibly hold it wherever we go isa scary thought. It’s what Apple vowed not to do when they aired that commercial. It vowed not to turn our world into a dystopian place ruled bya mistrustful administration, and it is holding true to its word. While the answer is not to Photo via www.igyaan.in build a backdoor, I do believe there is a solution, one that requires thought and careful calculation, and one that does not compromise the security and privacy of law-abiding citizens. We just need to think about it differently. Wear your heart (and your curse words) on your sleeve > Fashion shouldn't be so serious Sharon Miki Contributor A the world meanders towards the tail end of the fashion-week season (New York, London, and Milan are over, and Paris is this week—if you’re keeping track), it’s hard for even the most fashion-averse of us to avoid glimpses of what’s new or hot or not while scrolling through our feeds. Are culottes in, or are gauchos gauche? Should we all be bleaching our eyebrows and cutting the shoulders out of our sweaters? And should we dare to wear one of the year’s most controversial emerging trends—provocative language-emblazoned- clothing—out of the house? Well... why the heck not? Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Lawrence caused a stir with her street style recently, wearing an oversized Alexander Wang jean jacket with the word “Perv” proudly embroidered onto the back. The star’s casual ensemble twisted the panties of pearl-clutching style-philes, with reporters worrying that Lawrence’s style had wandered too far into obscene territory. Which... is somewhat ridiculous. She wasn’t attending a business Image via thinkstock meeting; she was walking around L.A. with her friends. If she wants to wear a shirt that says “Butts” or “Jeanjerking,” who are we to judge? Whether youre a celebrity or a college student, what you wear should be an evolving expression of self—this shouldn't be limited by fear of landing on your friend-circle’s worst- dressed list. I’m not saying you have to wear swear words on your shorts, but, if you feel like doing it, why not? Some may call to the appropriateness of said slogan- wear in professional settings, but come on: it’s possible to use reasonable judgment and incorporate fashion edge into some sartorial scenarios without losing your mind. Just as you wouldn't add your job interviewer to your Facebook account to show off your party pics, you can choose not to wear your “Fuck Off” blouse to your presentation. (Instead, you can wear it to your celebratory dinner date. Priorities.) If you aren't hurting anyone, adorn your body in anything that suits your mood. As Meryl Streep taught us in The Devil Wears Prada, fashion is an industry—but that doesn’t mean that it has to be so serious. Use your judgment, buy clothes that you like, and wear them when you want to. That’s all.