[HN Gopher] ByteDance confirmed it used TikTok to monitor journa...
___________________________________________________________________
ByteDance confirmed it used TikTok to monitor journalists' physical
location
Author : alphabetting
Score : 302 points
Date : 2022-12-22 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.forbes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com)
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| A bit of meta commentary but I've noticed in recent years a
| phenomenon where people will adamantly defend something _because
| they associate attacking it with their political opponents_.
|
| You see this very clearly in the conservative response to US
| support of Ukraine. You'd expect to see more conservative support
| for simultaneously defending a free people while also destroying
| a primary adversary for pennies on the dollar but instead you see
| a lot of skepticism _because the Democrats are all over
| supporting it_.
|
| I also see a similar phenomenon with TikTok, where I think some
| people defend it principally because banning TikTok was "a Trump
| thing" and more generally China-hawkishness is viewed as "a
| Republican thing".
| kranke155 wrote:
| Yeah. Ban TikTok, have an American company make a clone.
|
| Why is this insanity allowed ? China doesn't allow Western social
| networks. Why do we allow our strategic enemy to have software on
| our phones? End this madness. Stop the sale of Chinese tech in
| the West, period. It's all backdoored.
|
| (if you think they are interested in "co-living" go talk to the
| Kremlin on how that went. China is bidding its time but their
| intention is to end US dominance. They tell us this and they
| release papers on how they intend to do it. If you think that's
| ok, great. I don't see how a democratic rule of law country,
| flaws as it may have, being replaced by a brutal dictatorship, is
| a good option).
| ironSkillet wrote:
| Agreed...I don't understand why this isn't an obvious thing all
| of congress would get behind. Change the law if necessary.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Because the statutory (not to mention constitutional)
| implications are staggering: what about our government's
| structure do you think gives it the authority to outright ban
| social media companies? Do you _want_ it to have that power,
| or do you just want to government to casuistically ban the
| things you think should be banned?
|
| Note: this is entirely independent from whether TikTok is
| bad, which I'm more confident than not it is. But contorting
| our already contorted national security laws around it is not
| a tenable solution.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| "Do you want it to have that power"
|
| What an odd question. The government bans things all the
| time - can you go and buy unpasteurized milk right now? Or
| walk into a weapons store and buy brass knuckles? But
| heaven forbid, we're abandoning our principles if we ban a
| data collection platform owned and operated by a genocidal
| undemocratic government.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Of course the government bans things all the time. The
| question is of kind: unpasteurized milk and brass
| knuckles exist in regulatory environments that don't
| meaningfully impinge upon civil liberties.
|
| It's not even clear what statute you'd use to "ban"
| TikTok. Is it a national security risk?
| shrewduser wrote:
| it is a national risk but i imagine there's also economic
| / trade grounds in the fact that china doesn't let
| american companies compete in their market.
|
| I don't see any reason for it not to be in the purview of
| government.
| woodruffw wrote:
| It is in the purview of the government. That's not the
| question; the statutory justification for a _ban_ is the
| question.
|
| Every single country on this planet of ours engages in
| some form of protectionism, whether we like it or not:
| again, it isn't clear what casuistic justification
| explains singling out China's protectionism, and even
| then banning _just one_ company involved in it. Italy
| doesn 't let us sell the sawdust we call "Parmesan," but
| I'd prefer it if we didn't ban selling the real thing in
| retaliation.
|
| Finally, for the national risk: what, _precisely_ is the
| national risk? You can argue (correctly!) that they 're a
| bad actor given this news, and I would be _more than
| happy_ to see those involved in the surveillance of
| journalists see the inside of a court. But this doesn 't
| even come _close_ to meeting the standard for a national
| security risk, weak as that standard has become.
| [deleted]
| mannerheim wrote:
| You don't need to ban it. Just forbid US companies from
| doing business with TikTok, and their users will plummet
| when they can't pay for CDNs in America.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Thanks for actually answering the question!
|
| Frankly, I wouldn't mind if this happens. I just wish we
| wouldn't swing "national security" around as the cudgel.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| The Constitution plainly gives Congress the power and right
| to regulate international trade.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Yes. What isn't clear is whether that statutory authority
| even _approaches_ being empowered to ban companies that
| figure centrally in public expression.
| pesfandiar wrote:
| It seems we're sliding into a new cold war, but the US is
| still contemplating its strategy. Banning a vastly successful
| social media outright needs to be aligned with that strategy,
| and not to mention how unpopular taking away an addictive app
| would be with the voters.
| natelegler wrote:
| 100% this.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| It's not even tikTok really, it's WeChat or any other CCP
| monitored social media company.
|
| I'd love to have a tikTok not controlled by the CCP (or KGB for
| that matter).
|
| You know, a platform where saying something against the
| government doesn't result in prison time or death.
| Adraghast wrote:
| The KGB has not existed for decades. If you're going to make
| inflammatory statements, you should make sure you're talking
| about the correct things.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well this is naive - the KGB lives on with the same agents,
| same files, same buildings, same crimes - it's just now
| called the FSB.
| Adraghast wrote:
| Perhaps you thought me under the impression Russia hasn't
| had a state security service since the USSR collapsed,
| but obviously I know that. The point is that one can
| better cloak the warmed over Cold War paranoia they're
| peddling under the guise of knowing what they're talking
| about if they avoid warmed over Cold War terminology.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| For my part, I still insist on calling British soldiers
| "red coats".
| mannerheim wrote:
| Is it Cold War paranoia when Russia is currently engaged
| in the invasion of another country?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| It sure smells like it when you're using terminology
| outdated by 30 years. Don't use anachronisms if you don't
| want people to think you're anachronistic.
|
| You may as well call Russians "Soviets". Yes, it's many
| of the same people in the same buildings, doing the same
| sort of bullshit. But they aren't called Soviets anymore
| and if you go around calling them Soviets, you'll going
| to have people think that you're stuck in the 80s.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Do you insist people refer to the company who Mark
| Zuckerberg is CEO of as Meta? And correct people who
| speak of 'Google stock'?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Broken analogy; "Facebook" still exists and their CEO is
| still Mark Zuckerberg; the fact that Facebook is now
| owned by Meta hasn't changed this; the name "Facebook"
| was not discontinued. "Google stock" _is_ an anarchonism,
| but at least "Google" still exists.
|
| The KGB doesn't exist anymore. They are now the FSB. The
| "KGB" still exists in the same sense that "The Soviets"
| still exist, neither call themselves that anymore, nor do
| they have any subsidiaries called that.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Belarusian intelligence is still the KGB
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Personally I'm a lot more concerned about the FSB, but
| you do you.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Just a correction on the KGB not existing anymore.
| mannerheim wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_t
| h...
| Adraghast wrote:
| https://101kgb.iheart.com/
| mannerheim wrote:
| Belarusian KGB is the same organisation.
| shrewduser wrote:
| i mean only technically in name only.
| [deleted]
| bioemerl wrote:
| The KGB has not existed for decades, but its spiritual
| successor, Russia, is almost certainly still performing spy
| operations and generally you can assume when someone says
| KGB they mean Russian spies.
| partiallypro wrote:
| I actually liked the Trump method, which was to force them to
| sell the US arm to a US company and sever it from the Chinese.
| I don't know why that never came to fruition; it looked like it
| was nearly a done deal (Microsoft was the leading bidder.)
| Making a competitor from scratch would just open up the
| userbase to another state actor, though it could give a window
| for a Vine return.
| Bud wrote:
| Except that this story reveals the obvious reason this
| wouldn't work. How do you reliably keep that US "arm" from
| being co-opted? How do you make sure that the software isn't
| phoning home to China regardless of what the US arm does?
|
| Oracle and Walmart reportedly at that time brokered a deal to
| run the US arm of TikTok. Do you trust them? Walmart
| certainly isn't politically neutral, by any stretch.
| Meanwhile, Larry Ellison was a leading figure in the effort
| to subvert the 2020 election. He was on the Nov. 14 election
| subversion planning call, along with "Sen. Lindsey O. Graham
| (R-S.C.); Fox News host Sean Hannity; Jay Sekulow, an
| attorney for President Donald Trump; and James Bopp Jr., an
| attorney for True the Vote, a Texas-based nonprofit that has
| promoted disputed claims of widespread voter fraud." (source:
| WaPo)
|
| This doesn't seem like a solid plan, to put it rather mildly.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| The US Government already trusts Oracle Corp with much more
| than merely a social media application.
|
| https://www.oracle.com/industries/government/us-defense/
|
| Larry Ellison defecting to China doesn't seem like a likely
| scenario, I don't think he'd like life as an international
| fugitive, slave to a host with a history of treating their
| own native billionaires harshly. Barring such a flight, the
| US Government can get their hands on him if that becomes
| necessary, but I doubt it will.
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| mannerheim wrote:
| Activist judge blocked the sanctions on TikTok.
| bayindirh wrote:
| When US bans something to protect itself, that's OK, but when
| another country does it, it's a suppression of free speech and
| freedoms and whatnot.
|
| Doesn't this sound a bit _off_?
| kranke155 wrote:
| We're not in the world of what ifs and ethical debates.
|
| We are in a world where our strategic enemy has a foothold on
| our digital lives and will likely use it against us. This is
| evidence. We should treat our enemies as enemies. China
| doesn't consider itself to be in a friendly competition for
| dominance. Neither should we.
| 8note wrote:
| We're in a world where Facebook has already used it's power
| to influence who wins western elections.
|
| The enemy was here before TikTok has existed, china is
| catching up quickly to the western tools for dominance
| eldritch_4ier wrote:
| Good things are good, evil things are evil.
|
| This detached observer way of looking at the world is mind
| boggling. There is nothing contradictory about arguing for
| the good and arguing against the evil. I think this mindset
| stems from a fundamental uncertainty in our values, and
| conclude that our values are just as good as any others. It's
| simply not true.
|
| No. TikTok is run by a state hostile to the ideals of freedom
| and our western way of life. That alone is enough of an
| argument for banning it: because of values are good, and we
| don't want their values. If they are not willing to go above
| and beyond to demonstrate they will do the same, then ban it.
| They are not entitled to our attention, our children's
| attention, or any of our other resources.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Your comment only makes sense since you are an american.
| The entire premise of your argument completely false a part
| when you have actually experienced what the "goodness" of
| america, say in the middle east, means.
| lmm wrote:
| The idea that US is good and China is evil is absurd. Other
| Americans do far more to destroy "ideals of freedom and our
| western way of life" than China does - hell, I'm pretty
| sure that with the current US polarisation, both sides
| would say they have more in common with China than with
| their US opponents - and they'd be right. Take any concept
| of "freedom" or "way of life" that you care for, and half
| the US is currently against it. TikTok is a bogeyman that
| has done nothing to Americans that Americans weren't
| already doing to themselves.
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Intent matters. The reason why China bans foreign social
| media is much different than the reason we would want to ban
| TikTok.
| medellin wrote:
| Little different when the CCP is ok the board of the company
| and controls its decisions. Look at what happened to Didi
| when they did one thing without consent from them. I don't
| think you are comparing the same things.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Does anyone consider the EU passing all sorts of data privacy
| laws and putting regulations on American companies as
| censorship?
|
| No, just regular protectionism and it doesn't get too much
| flack.
|
| The problem with China is that they are actually suppressing
| free speech and freedoms and whatnot. Do you disagree that
| this is the case?
| imperfect_blue wrote:
| Tit-for-tat makes perfect sense from a game theory point of
| view, even ignoring the egregious abuse of data for nefarious
| purposes by the CCP.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| US soldiers used rifles. Nazi soldiers also used rifles. Oh
| the hypocrisy!
|
| Give me a break.
| acchow wrote:
| If China decided to ban a US company for using its app to
| locate Chinese citizens, I'd say that is totally fair.
| kranke155 wrote:
| China has banned all western social media I think?
| FpUser wrote:
| >"China doesn't allow Western social networks. Why do we allow
| our strategic enemy to have software on our phones?"
|
| I agree with this. Things should be reciprocal. I do not think
| China is the enemy though. More like a strategic competitor.
| Trading with the enemy is a crime, right?
|
| >"(if you think they are interested in "co-living" go talk to
| the Kremlin on how that went"
|
| Why do you equate China with Kremlin? I think China is way
| smarter and has managed huge economical achievements while
| Putin is pissing away immense potential that Russia has. If we
| talk about co-living it is the US that after WWII was attacking
| and wrecking numerous countries killing directly and indirectly
| millions. China so far has harassed its own population only and
| has yet to do anything even remotely approaching what the US
| has done on international scale.
|
| >"China is bidding its time but their intention is to end US
| dominance."
|
| Now here comes the real reason. The US dominance - you sure
| this is what the rest of the world wants? How about we try
| without subservients to a single country.
|
| >"I don't see how a democratic rule of law country, flaws as it
| may have, being replaced by a brutal dictatorship, is a good
| option"
|
| Nobody wants that. But it is the US (and allies) that keeps
| taking away more rights and freedoms. If you compare for
| example 90s and now people look more and more like cattle. You
| can't blame China for that. I think somebody else is
| responsible.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| To me this doesn't really address the bigger picture. Why is
| this tracking even possible? Why don't we build better security
| in to our products? Is it because US companies built their
| business on this same type of tracking? Perhaps that's the
| issue we should fix.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Why do we allow our strategic enemy to have software on our
| phones?
|
| They _make_ the phones. What makes you trust the hardware in
| the first place?
| not2b wrote:
| They assemble the phones would be more accurate; most of the
| chips are manufactured elsewhere.
| kranke155 wrote:
| That's exactly my point. Apple moving some production to
| India (or so I read) is a good first step. Western production
| moved to China due to Chinese strategic efforts to locate our
| industrial production there. We should have our own strategic
| effort of our own to reverse that.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| This is rewriting history.
|
| Production moved to China because China began allowing
| foreign investment, and Chinese labor was cheaper. Foreign
| companies made their own decisions to take advantage of
| cheap Chinese labor.
|
| This wasn't some sort of nefarious Chinese plot. The US
| also wanted China to open up to American investment.
| kranke155 wrote:
| China made a large effort to woo western companies to
| manufacture there. Afaik they built special economic
| zones, it was a deliberate effort by the govt. If it all
| happened by accident then why didn't manufacturing move
| to India? Both China and India moved to the GATT at the
| same time afaik.
| lmm wrote:
| Manufacturing didn't move to India largely because their
| quality wasn't good enough. There's no need to make it
| more complicated than that.
| h4x0rr wrote:
| I mean can you really call it democratic when there are only
| two parties and the citizens have basically no power?
| https://youtu.be/U6w9CbemhVY
| treeman79 wrote:
| Bribes, lots of bribes.
|
| Trump called for Tik Tok to be banned. He was mocked for it.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Fine great let's just agree Trump got it right and end this.
| h4x0rr wrote:
| I mean there are already two american tiktok clones: insta
| reels and YouTube shorts
| kranke155 wrote:
| Great. Then kill it, then kill any company with Chinese
| origin that won't open source it's hardware and software to
| the US Government.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The American clones are garbage. The problem with
| protectionism is it leads to less competition and therefore
| worse products. If you want apps to stop tracking people
| just make it illegal for apps to tracks people. Country of
| origin is irrelelvant.
| SoylentYellow wrote:
| > Country of origin is irrelelvant.
|
| Country of origin is still very relevant. China has
| National Security Laws that compel companies and citizens
| to provide access to and actively help their intelligence
| agencies. The CCP right now can lawfully order TikTok to
| push a version with a backdoor and then gaslight the US
| about its existence if found, e.g. oh that was just an
| innocent software bug. Or to secretly provide user data
| and lie about providing it.
| not2b wrote:
| But the business models of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
| and Google Search are all based on tracking people.
| h4x0rr wrote:
| I aggree, it's a much more pragmatic solution. But do you
| really think the CCP would follow this rule?
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The CCP doesn't have anything to do with it. TikTok would
| have to follow the rule, just like any other company.
| h4x0rr wrote:
| CCP is part of bytedance and it's more than likely
| they'll follow government requests. The OP was about
| journalists, not regular users mind you.
| Sebguer wrote:
| How is this different from Uber's god view?
| [deleted]
| zug_zug wrote:
| I feel like this is talking out of both sides of the mouth.
|
| If _the issue_ is that corporations aren 't following data
| privacy laws, build the privacy into the tool at the
| software/ecosystem level (e.g make signup without true name /
| phone number / IMEI a legal requirement, signup without location
| sharing a legal requirement) then it'll be impossible to track
| journalists for both Chinese and American companies.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Forget corporations, I'm concerned about what the governments
| are doing with this data to harm people (especially those under
| their own jurisdictions).
|
| ByteDance isn't the problem, the CCP controlling it is.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| [dead]
| sneak wrote:
| Companies use phone number for signup because phone numbers
| cost money, and it serves as a proxy to allow companies to
| generally avoid having people make hundreds of thousands of
| burner accounts.
| bioemerl wrote:
| We should do both.
|
| This is detracting from the fact that we have an actively
| hostile actor with a huge platform here in our country, and
| that needs to be handled as soon as possible.
|
| I totally support broad regulation of privacy law. TikTok is a
| much deeper concern. I don't like seeing a good cause used to
| distract from another good cause.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > This is detracting from the fact that we have an actively
| hostile actor with a huge platform here in our country, and
| that needs to be handled as soon as possible.
|
| Can you clarify what you mean here? I realize people are
| unhappy with how Elon has run Twitter but who do you expect
| to do what?
| 8note wrote:
| We should do the one because it covers both cases.
|
| A TikTok that doesn't have the ability to do bad things isn't
| an issue. Focusing on TikTok pretends that it's the only
| hostile actor with a large platform in <country> that needs
| to be handled asap
|
| You can handle Facebook and TikTok at the same time by
| putting in strong privacy regulations, along with all the
| other similar hostile actors
| bioemerl wrote:
| I'm very skeptical that there is such a thing as a
| regulation which can keep a state actor with zero
| transparency like TikTok in check.
|
| Even if you move all of their code and mandate that they
| have a shell company in the United States, and you mandate
| that none of American data ever goes to China, they can
| ignore you. You validate that every request only stays in
| the United States? How do you validate that there's no
| communication between the two systems?
|
| The state they operate in is going to make whistle blowing
| very difficult, not ever allow proper auditing into the
| state apparatus which ultimately controls the company.
|
| You can administrate code, but unless you actually build
| that code yourself and basically understand it from the
| ground up with every single update, which is going to be
| nearly impossible, it's going to be very easy to sneak
| features through.
|
| The problem is, keeping this safe is going to be a herculan
| task, and we're just not up to it. Facebook is tame in
| comparison, because at the end of the day they're subject
| to our open media, transparency laws, corporate auditing,
| and all of that other fun stuff.
|
| We can reasonably pass regulations that help keep Facebook
| in check.
|
| We cannot reasonably pass regulations which we'll keep
| TikTok in check.
| dieortin wrote:
| Tiktok isn't only dangerous because of the data they
| harvest. It's the epitome of algorithmic social media,
| which can be extremely damaging to society, and also a tool
| for propaganda and disinformation.
| shrewduser wrote:
| personally despite all that, it seems weird that western
| social network / tech companies aren't able to operate in
| china but the reverse is fine.
| siggen wrote:
| Mainly due to different government systems/markets. Each
| nation applies certain rules to protect interests and
| favored companies. An article that described some is here
| [1].
|
| [1] https://time.com/6139988/countries-where-twitter-
| facebook-ti...
| renonn wrote:
| [dead]
| 8note wrote:
| The west values free enterprise, association, etc. China
| does not.
|
| If you want to be more like china, you can ban them, but if
| you think that freedom is valuable, it's you who's losing
| out
| kmonsen wrote:
| Or you can have a group of countries that mostly
| cooperates and leave out the ones that only take and
| never give.
| shrewduser wrote:
| The west doesn't just give everyone unlimited market
| access, especially if it's not reciprocated.
| [deleted]
| paiute wrote:
| same with land ownership.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I often wonder why the average american should be more
| concerned about China than the CIA or FBI?
|
| the FBI has the power to put me in a cage, China does not...
| I am confused as why china is a bigger threat to me
| personally than the FBI?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| How about both
| ipaddr wrote:
| The average person would never come in contact with the fbi
| or be put in a cage randomly. Ask your neighbours / friends
| if they have heard about anyone in their circle who had
| this happen to them in some form.
|
| That fear is from tv using it so often it seems true.
|
| What does the average American need to fear about China?
| Very little in terms of impact to daily lives.
|
| What does the average American need to fear about being
| secretly recorded by a neighbour? Very little.. they still
| think its creepy
| jfengel wrote:
| The FBI has that power, but at least in theory they don't
| want to. That's the balance we strike with government: we
| give them the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, in
| exchange for some kind of believe that they won't mis-use
| that force.
|
| The FBI has at least some kind of supervision, from elected
| officials who ultimately answer to their constituents.
| That's a long way from a guarantee, but it's more than
| nothing, which is what you have on China.
|
| China can't (legitimately) put you in a cage, but they can
| do a lot of other things to make you really unhappy, and
| there's nothing you can do about it. Whether that nets out
| to be more or less scary is up to you, but there is a
| difference on which to make the distinction.
|
| Me, I'm not really so sure that this app represents all
| that big a threat compared to all of the other things. My
| concerns are more with the intermediate: large corporations
| without the power to put me in a cage but with the power to
| do a lot of other bad things. Including just plain losing
| my info by accident, something neither the FBI nor China is
| likely to do.
| hollerith wrote:
| The FBI and CIA have both good and bad effects on a US
| resident whereas China's national security establishment
| has only bad effects (if it has any significant effects).
|
| There is no disadvantage to a US resident from stopping
| them from spying on US residents.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Depends hugely on who you are and what happens with the
| politics.
|
| CIA and FBI are very big threats to you, which is why you
| vote regularly to ensure that your rights are represented
| and those agencies aren't able to abuse their power.
|
| China is a much more distant and abstract, but much more
| serious threat.
|
| If the FBI or CIA fucks up, they will put let's say 10% of
| people in prison for opposition to the state.
|
| If China is allowed to gain upper hands on the United
| States, it will result in broad scale societal problems
| which I couldn't even begin to estimate. Imagine a world
| where Russia is allowed to take Europe. Imagine a world
| where the United States is convinced to stand by as Taiwan
| is invaded and our chip supply is shut down.
|
| They are very different threats, and should be treated very
| differently. The FBI and CIA are immune system type
| systems, where China is a guy with a knife.
|
| The CIA and FBI have checks on them and are balanced as we
| speak. China is a fully rogue actor with no balancing
| systems to prevent it from damaging our society.
|
| Both can kill you, both will kill you if given the
| opportunity. You shouldn't worry not about the guy with a
| knife because your immune system can kill you in 5 minutes
| if it wanted to. You should worry about both.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>which is why you vote regularly to ensure that your
| rights are represented and those agencies aren't able to
| abuse their power
|
| That never works out in practice as the administrative
| state (which includes the FBI and CIA) are soo far
| removed from representative government they are basically
| unaccountable at this point, that is with out even
| getting into the idea that 1 vote in a nation of 350
| million plus holds no real power anyway, or the problems
| with First past the post, or countless other topics
| around voting
|
| "Democracy" is more or less an delusion those in power
| perpetuate to ensure the cattle think they have a choice
|
| >>Imagine a world where the United States is convinced to
| stand by as Taiwan is invaded
|
| I think we already live in such a world.
|
| >>The CIA and FBI have checks on them and are balanced as
| we speak.
|
| Do they? In any real sense? We have confirmed and rumored
| massive violations of constitutional rights both here and
| abroad yet there is no accountability. From the Torture
| report, to massive violation of 4th amendment via
| "parallel construction" to even the possibility of actual
| assassinations..
|
| Who exactly are they accountable to? it is certainly not
| the people, or the constitution
| andrepd wrote:
| >possibility of actual assassinations
|
| There are _documented_ examples of FBI killings of
| dissident citizens (e.g. Fred Hampton). This is not even
| a "possibility".
| bioemerl wrote:
| > "Democracy" is more or less an delusion those in power
| perpetuate to ensure the cattle think they have a choice
|
| I had a much larger post, but I'm going to only respond
| to this one now, because it sums up basically off the
| disagreements and no further discussion is going to
| resolve anything.
|
| I don't agree with this sort of cynicism at all, and I
| very much do believe that while it is very flawed,
| democracy ultimately is still doing its job.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I understand the resistance cynicism, however your
| statement about democracy seems to be more faith based
| than any kind of data
|
| What data do you have to support the position that
| "democracy ultimately is still doing its job. " further
| what "job" do you believe democracy is doing.
|
| I can point to many data points that show it is not, the
| for mentioned lack of accountability. The fact that most
| of the voting population does not even vote. I can point
| to research studies like that from political scientists
| Martin Gilens and Benjamin Paige [1] that shows Average
| citizens have little impact on public policy. I have all
| kinds of data, and clear examples in history to support
| my position, I would be interested in seeing a counter
| offer
|
| [1] https://pnhp.org/news/gilens-and-page-average-
| citizens-have-...
| Jolter wrote:
| I guess there is a tacit assumption that you and the US
| government have some shared goals, but that you share fewer
| goals with ByteDance or the government of China.
|
| I guess most Americans aren't very scared of the feds
| "because they have nothing to hide", which as we know is a
| false sense of security in any surveillance state. But it
| can still be true that you have /more/ to fear from the
| government of China, given that they can have economic
| impact on your life at a macro level.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>tacit assumption that you and the US government have
| some shared goals
|
| My goal is to live my life free from abuse, coercion, and
| infringement of my natural rights as a living human
|
| the governments goal (be it china or US) is power, and
| control via the exclusive authority to initiate violence
| on the people with in the sphere of influence
|
| I do not share any goals with government.
| threeseed wrote:
| In Australia, the Chinese government has been very
| aggressive with our citizens.
|
| - Students have had family members back in China threatened
| with imprisonment for merely attending protests.
|
| - Journalists have been kidnapped and are still missing.
|
| - Other individuals have been monitored by local embassy
| staff.
|
| - Businesses have seen markets arbitrarily cut-off for any
| form of criticism.
|
| Just because you have not been personally threatened
| doesn't mean others haven't.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| This has also happened in the US.
| cloverich wrote:
| The FBI has the power to put you in a cage, and yet you are
| not in a cage. China regularly puts its own citizens in a
| cage or worse for offenses that are perfectly acceptable
| here, such as criticizing our leadership. China is a large
| and powerful country. China is an authoritarian state whose
| leadership would unquestionably impose their will on us
| could they. Recording data about us now to be used in 10,
| 20, or 50 years in the same ways they are actively using it
| agains their current citizens today doesn't seem far
| fetched, however unlikely at this point in time.
| causality0 wrote:
| Would you be concerned if your childrens' school curriculum
| had to get pre-approval from the Chinese government? That's
| the quantity of exposure we already have. An entity
| beholden to the CCP has an iron grip on the attention of
| America's youth.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I would not want my Children on TikTok if it was American
| Owned. so the connection to China.
|
| TikTok is toxic trash for many reason well beyond its
| connection to China
| Bud wrote:
| If they won't follow one set of laws, how will another set of
| laws reliably solve the problem? They can just disobey those
| laws, too. Anonymous login credentials can be de-anonymized in
| all kinds of ways.
| kube-system wrote:
| That's often antithetical to the point of using social media.
| The data that most people share on social media are either
| inherently identifying, or easy to deanonymize.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Telcos can still track their customers, and who knows which
| three-letter agencies can get all that data.
|
| The only issue now is (it seems), that it's the chinese doing
| it and not facebook/google or local telcos.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Were the journalists foolish enough to install the app (not
| victim blaming but come on) or does the TikTok app scan for other
| wifi signatures in the vicinity and that's how they correlated
| the locations?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Were the journalists foolish enough to install the app_
|
| Foolish doesn't describe it, if they knew they were taking a
| calculated risk.
|
| Suppose they knew there was a risk the app could be used to
| track them, and maybe even a risk that tracking data could be
| used to assassinate them. But if TikTok tracked them with the
| app, that could also become part of their story against TikTok
| and thus advance their journalistic career. Fortune favors the
| bold.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I was wondering this myself. Tiktok surely needs location data
| permitted to track, no? I'm sure there are some heuristics it
| can use, perhaps pinging servers or image matching pictures but
| surely this could all be solved by putting TikTok in a
| container with specifically limited permissions.
| blessedwhiskers wrote:
| Images probably have location data in the EXIF as well that
| can be used for this. If notifications cause background data
| fetch from their servers that could also probably leak IP
| address.
| joenathanone wrote:
| There are multiple data points that can be used and/or
| correlated to determine location, including IP address, if
| permissions are enabled, nearby Bluetooth devices, nearby WiFi
| MAC addresses, connected cell tower, and of course GPS. Also
| they don't even need to be installed on the journalist's
| device, but their child/spouse/coworker/close friends would
| also do.
| alphabetting wrote:
| Tdlr: Tiktok's Chinese parent company used Tiktok user data to
| track US journalists who uncovered they were accessing US user
| data in China.
| Patrol8394 wrote:
| And yet people don't care and keep using it. It shows exactly why
| you can't trust common sense and people to do the right thing.
| rvz wrote:
| Like I said before, TikTok must be fined in the billions for
| abusing the privacy of its users. This is not the first time that
| they have done this but now it is clear that they have admitted
| this.
|
| They have been caught once [0] and have been caught again this
| year [1] and lied about accessing the sensitive data of its own
| users [2], [3], [4] and admitted it here. Clearly the fines in
| [0] and [1] are extremely low and the fine must increase in the
| billions since these are repeated privacy violations and haven't
| learned anything from it.
|
| There is no excuse for billion dollar fines for TikTok.
|
| [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/technology/tiktok-kids-
| pr...
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/technology/tiktok-
| childre...
|
| [2] https://futurism.com/tiktok-spy-locations-specific-americans
|
| [3]
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-...
|
| [4] https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/03/tiktok-just-gave-itself-
| pe...
| robswc wrote:
| I truly wish Trump would have been able to actually ban TikTok
| (or at least force a sale).
|
| The recent twitter files show that the bond between Government
| and social media companies is a little too close... but it would
| be foolish to suggest that the lesser of the two evils here is
| China.
|
| It is actually insane that we let China do whatever they want
| here while US companies are effectively prevented from gaining a
| foothold in China.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Yeah it was a shame this was blocked.
| weezin wrote:
| There are tons of valid criticism for the US intelligence
| community, but when it isn't agenda driven they can be right
| about a lot of things, for example knowing that Russia was
| preparing to invade Ukraine.
| sschueller wrote:
| We need a law to generally make this illegal. Uber did the same
| thing and Tesla hired PIs to do it.
| lmm wrote:
| Laws are meaningless without enforcement, and good luck getting
| US law enforcement to enforce laws that they themselves are
| breaking routinely. We need a whole culture shift in government
| if we're going to have any hope of fixing this.
| varenc wrote:
| I generally agree, but that's no reason why we shouldn't push
| for a law banning use of private data like this now. It seems
| like a first step towards that culture shift we want. And
| even if enforcement of this new law is lacking, I bet in the
| TikTok situation the US gov we be happy to enforce it.
| willio58 wrote:
| 100% agree. We shouldn't just stop one company from doing this.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| At the same time, TikTok is much more likely to follow the
| laws of China than the US, while Facebook is the reverse.
| China is an adversary of the US that does things like let
| fentanyl flow unfettered here and withhold vital data on
| Covid, if it were Spotify (based out of Sweden) it would be
| very different
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _ByteDance planned to use TikTok to surveil specific American
| citizens_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33280176 - Oct
| 2022 (208 comments)
|
| _Leaked Audio from TikTok Meetings - US User Data Repeatedly
| Accessed from China_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31781146 - June 2022 (12
| comments)
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| No worse than what the US and UK (and other FVEY) have done for
| years. Those in glass houses ...
| notwokeno wrote:
| Why are journalists running TikTok?
| fn-mote wrote:
| Guesses:
|
| 1. The same reason they're playing Clash Royale... down time,
| filling the wait. Do you think they were on their employer-
| provided phone? Do you think they even have an employer-
| provided phone?
|
| 2. Maybe they also have a social media presence. That would be
| a different issue, and actually easier to address by the
| employer.
| system2 wrote:
| Ban this crap already. Save kids from this chinese nightmare.
| Bud wrote:
| Let's not fool ourselves. US companies have been doing the same
| thing, and they will continue to.
| system2 wrote:
| At least we can punish American companies if they do
| something shady.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Sure, but since we explicitly won't, I feel that a lot of
| this outrage is just BS. As a US citizen, I'm far more
| concerned with the US government knowing where I am at all
| times than China. We could pass a law that forbids the US
| government to consume any personally identifiable data from
| social media platforms without a warrant, but we won't.
| ProAm wrote:
| I think Ed Snowden proved to us this is not true. Room 614a
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
| LarryMullins wrote:
| That was revealed several years before Snowden's
| defection.
| lmm wrote:
| And yet nothing was done about it.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Nor since.
|
| ProAm clarified that these were intended as two separate
| examples, so fair enough. It just rubs me the wrong way
| when people seem to give credit to Snowden for revealing
| things which were already known.
| ProAm wrote:
| I meant that as two different things, both were largely
| disregarded as punishable.
| Bud wrote:
| Can we? That seems to very much depend on who is in power
| and who has benefitted from the shadiness in question.
| ffssffss wrote:
| Which US companies are tracking journalist locations for the
| Chinese government? Tesla?
| Bud wrote:
| The claim wasn't that they did so for the Chinese
| government. But Facebook, for example, did so, for its own
| purposes. This is just as bad. We can't really have
| journalism being threatened, regardless of whether it's
| threatened by China, or supposedly-loyal US companies.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Facebook, for example, did so, for its own purposes.
| This is just as bad_
|
| It's in a totally different league. Domestic corporation
| spying for commercial purposes versus a militaristic
| dictatorship with a track record of extrajudicial
| harassment.
| lmm wrote:
| Large US corporations and their owners also have a track
| record of extrajudicial harassment.
| pksebben wrote:
| Facebook perhaps, but it's hard to see the differences
| between China and the US in terms of
| spying/wiretapping/harassment.
|
| If we really wanted to avoid China spying on our
| citizens, we'd implement broad and strong encryption
| across our network - but we fight that (as a country)
| because it would weaken our own surveillance.
|
| We could absolutely choose to deescalate in this field,
| we just don't.
| [deleted]
| space_fountain wrote:
| Also correct me if I'm wrong. The claim isn't that
| ByteDance did it for the Chinese government, but that
| they did it to try to find internal leakers
| kranke155 wrote:
| US has laws, independent courts and elections.
|
| You might want to debate it's level of efficiency and
| fairness, but on the other side you have a dictatorship.
| lmm wrote:
| > US has laws, independent courts and elections.
|
| Most of which the NSA is exempted from. China has laws and
| courts too.
| [deleted]
| biohacker85 wrote:
| Is the threat of a foreign adversary spying on US citizens
| the same as the US Government spying on its citizens? I'm in
| the camp that a foreign adversary is a more dangerous
| situation.
| dang wrote:
| You're welcome to make thoughtful comments on any side of the
| issue, but please don't post unsubstantive comments and/or
| flamebait. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it
| is for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| Alifatisk wrote:
| Finally, this proved my paranoia to be true.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Where are the people now who were saying in previous threads
| things like "tick tock is safe, there is no way they abuse their
| users, invade privacy, or log devices on the users local wifi"?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Who was saying that? I feel like I've read a lot of HN threads
| on TikTok, and don't feel like I've ever seen anyone here say
| that, or no visible comments that weren't grayed out.
|
| People defending TikTok are generally questioning the risk of
| this data being weaponized by the CCP and whether it's even
| much of a weapon and whether that's worth it to ban them over.
| Not over whether TikTok voluntarily follows some privacy
| guidelines -- on that it's generally assumed they're either
| already vacuuming up all they can, or could turn that on at any
| time.
| simmerup wrote:
| They're busy shifting the goal posts
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| jmyeet wrote:
| Whatever complaints people have about how deep the tendrils of
| the US government have infiltrated into US companies, there is at
| least some separation and the rule of law. Yes, the government
| can get warrants for pen registers, issue NSLs and the like but
| there's still a process for that.
|
| This simply isn't true for the Chinese government and Chinese
| companies.
|
| But the other issue, which is both more palatable and more
| general, is one of reciprocity. China deliberately restricts
| Western companies from their market. A key component of trade is
| reciprocal market access.
| lmm wrote:
| > Yes, the government can get warrants for pen registers, issue
| NSLs and the like but there's still a process for that.
|
| > This simply isn't true for the Chinese government and Chinese
| companies.
|
| Huh? Do you think the Chinese intelligence services don't have
| to go through processes and approvals before grabbing user
| data? It's exactly the same thing - sure it's a secret court
| that rubber-stamps every request put in front of it, but that's
| no different from how NSLs work.
| SoylentYellow wrote:
| There is no requirement under the Chinese National
| Intelligence Law for intelligence agencies to go through
| courts for access. There is no due process for those
| affected. That law also compels companies and citizens to
| actively assist intelligence agencies.
| dragonelite wrote:
| Come on man don't be so naive.
| ironyman wrote:
| https://www.vox.com/recode/23453786/tiktok-bytedance-cfius-d...
|
| Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner argues that
| even if there is nothing wrong with Tiktok it ought to be banned
| because it gives China a crucial edge in the development of AI
| tools that American companies don't have. China is able to freely
| access Western markets but not the other way around.
|
| > Finally, there's the fear that China will be able to use
| TikTok's data to power its AI innovations. That's an advantage
| the US won't have because its social media apps are banned in
| China and because there aren't laws that would compel social
| media companies to hand over data just because the government
| wants it.
|
| > "They are aggregating literally billions and billions of images
| of not just Americans but people from around the world who are
| using TikTok," Warner said. "That gives them so much more data to
| help them create tools that can be utilized in the AI world."
| thomasahle wrote:
| > That's an advantage the US won't have because [its social
| media apps are banned in China and] because there aren't laws
| that would compel social media companies to hand over data just
| because the government wants it.
|
| Wait, why would it be an advantage for creation of AI in the US
| if social media companies (or company) could be more easily
| compelled to give our data to the government? Given that it's
| the social media company we are expecting to produce the AI
| anyway.
| wyldberry wrote:
| Because Bytedance and similar orgs are merged with the CCP.
| So they pass data up the chain, and the CCP can make new
| rules, investments, and directives with it. This allows the
| CCP to accelerate with this data in ways that the US cannot.
|
| So CCP gets full access to American residents, without
| reciprocating US social media actions within it, and then
| compels Bytedance to give it access.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Can you give me a real example of this data? I don't doubt
| it happens, I just want an example to cite.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > "the misconduct of a few individuals"
|
| Always is. Bad apples. Rogue actors. Acting alone. Examples made.
| Lessons learned. Public assured. Throw the low rank scapegoats
| under a bus. And keep praying we're as stupid as you make
| yourself look.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-22 23:00 UTC)