6 ms·

The security implications of allowing communications on a platform that is subject to the absolute control of a foreign government, seems like a very very bad i

The security implications of allowing communications on a platform that is subject to the absolute control of a foreign government, seems like a very very bad idea. That can be a lesson learned the easy way or the hard way.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I honestly think we give Chinese apps too much equal footing. In about 5-8 years, when China has insane surveillance network around the world (they already have), this comment is going to sound the most sensible thing to do - blanket ban any application developed and served by the CCP or similar government. People teeter-totter about righteousness and freedom of choice, but IMO we need to stop feeding the CCP with more power/$$$/influence ... NOW ... Freedom of choice is great when there is fairness and democratic values built in, when the government isn't on some Han-supremacy drug and expansionist motives. Someone will inevitably respond with whataboutism and smear American companies into the mix as if they're expressing their understanding of hypocracy and one-sidedness. It is supposed to be one-sided. The west offered two-way street which China declined to walk on. So, now all bets are off. Equivalency with the western apps/services/goods is no longer a valid counter argument. On fair, just, and rational grounds - I am a progressive. In unfair, unjust and irrational waters - I am a conservative.
- jquery 6y ago
  The CCP has already shown they’re willing to abuse TikTok to stir unrest in the USA, you aren’t even making a theoretical argument. I’m a lot more worried about China than Russia, when it comes to bad behavior by state actors.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    What?! I dont have any memory of "CCP abuses TikTok to stir unrest in USA" being reported. Is there really such evidence? If there is evidence, then please just ban the goddamn app out of any mobile smart phone platforms. It's too dangerous to open the lid of such mass bring-washing machine. Even in the Arab-spring, it was just passively allowing the information to propagate organically. No one with sane judgement should allow these apps being used as manipulation tools by any minority group...
  - godelski 6y ago
    This is why I'm always confused my privacy arguments. When someone says that they want privacy the responses go like: reference Goebbels: "I have nothing to hide, so I'm not worried" Downplay: "They only read my emails and everything I write to sell me stuff better. Sometimes I need stuff. They're helping me!" As if it can only be used to sell and nothing else. World revolves around self: "Well ads don't affect me." Like it doesn't matter that everyone else is affected even if you aren't. Completely ignoring the fact that if someone can manipulate you to buy stuff they might be able to use it to manipulate you do do other things. I mean we have political ads. And Coke ads aren't there to sell you coke (they are there to make you feel better about your purchase). Frankly, to me it doesn't even matter if no one has done that yet (I'm aware of the clear evidence that people have) but that we're giving people the ability to do this in mass and in very precise ways. That just leads to a potential turn in democracy. "Just educating people" doesn't solve the problem either. Ads are still effective on smart people. So the question is "are the benefits ~~profits~~ worth the cost?" It is reasonable to think "yes", but I'm a resounding "no." Yes, we use political ads to "manipulate democracy" and the like, but a mass statewide commercial is a very different thing than an individualized ad targeted to a specific person. At least to me these are very different (and we still have regulations on what you can say in political ads). Where do we draw the line? We talk about data a lot here and what we can model with it. What will ads look like in 20-50 years if we don't draw a line in privacy and technology continues to become more powerful? I think individualized ads will look very different. We do need to determine what level of individualization we can target with an ad, and I don't see much of that happening.
    - jquery 6y ago
      Excellent comment, you changed my thinking on the issue. I feel like liberal, educated democracies are focused on the wrong problems. It’s only going to get harder to change course the longer we keep sailing in this direction of a laissez faire, anything-goes approach to software. Apple’s infamous walled garden solves this problem to some extent, but introduces others because it lacks due process, leading to corruption where money can solve any problem, and so apps like Tiktok get to abuse their trust with impunity.
      - 6y ago
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  “Equal” footing? China doesn’t allow anyone to use my app, instead I was required to have a conference call with Tencent where they insisted I give them all of my code so they can release their own version in China which they super cereal pinky promise they’ll give me all the revenue from. I declined and they made an incredibly shitty clone of my app instead which I was never allowed to compete with. Fuck chinks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ianmobbs 6y ago
  > The west offered two-way street which China declined to walk on. What?
  - MintelIE 6y ago
    It's pretty simple, China doesn't allow western companies access to its markets reciprocally. This isn't controversial or esoteric information. It's a well known fact.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      When two parties negotiate they generally try to negotiate in their personal interest. Given how many Western companies flocked to China the access was apparently still worth it. It's not like this is uncommon either. The US themselves did this under Hamilton's American System and Japan did it in the late 19th century when they maximized goods and technology coming in while trying to keep as much foreign influence out. It's a reasonable strategy and particularly understandable with a historical view of East-Asia, which doesn't have the best experience with opening up to Western companies. I never really understood where the problem is because China didn't kidnap Apple's CEO and forced them to build factories in China. If Americans think whatever China offers is not worth it they're free not to participate.
      - sukilot 6y ago
        Sure, "American" multinational corporation managers love to play ball with CCP to make money. That doesn't mean Americans citizens love it or that American government should support it.
radikalerludwig 6y ago
> a platform that is subject to the absolute control of a foreign government I'm sure you would argue that Google, MS and Apple are completely independent of the US government.
- wpasc 6y ago
  I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you are implying that the US influence over Google, MS, and Apple is comparable to China's influence over TikTok and other Chinese companies then that is an utterly false equivalence. I don't have links but it is well established the role and influence CCP has in Chinese companies and US companies have gone to great legal lengths to restrict the US Government's involvement in certain areas like the fight over encryption.
  - radikalerludwig 6y ago
    >US companies have gone to great legal lengths to restrict the US Government's involvement in certain areas Yeah, they spend a fortune on lobbying - nonetheless they are very compliant with the US "national security". Keep them downvotes coming, Snowden never blew a whistle.
    - khuey 6y ago
      I'm sure the government considers the years long ongoing battle between Apple and the FBI over device encryption to be "very compliant".
- godelski 6y ago
  The issue is (as far as I know) the CCP has unfettered access to Chinese apps. On the other hand, the US government has to ask. While Google, MS, Apple, etc have all said "yes" plenty of times, they also have said "no" and are doing so more frequently as public opinion is changing on privacy. Literally the ability to say no is a big difference. If I am wrong about the unfettered access, let me know.
- ls612 6y ago
president 6y ago
> subject to the absolute control of a foreign government Especially a foreign government that is considered a top adversary by the US and vice-versa.
grecy 6y ago
> subject to the absolute control of a foreign government National Security letters mean that for 95.75% of the world's population, what you just said applies to the USA.
severino 6y ago
Well, I'm more concerned about my platform being subject to the control of my own government. Because I don't care very much about foreign governments given I happen to be a western citizen that has nothing to do with that countries. But what about ours, do you think our government is better than theirs? For how long?
- jeanvalmarc 6y ago
  > do you think our government is better than theirs? For how long? America has problems, but your order-of-magnitude calibration is way off if you think a concentration-camp operating (i.e. the real kind with over a million people who committed no crime and are held just for their beliefs and culture) expansionist (Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan) totalitarian (speech is monitored and punished in a "go to prison, right away" manner rather than "twitter deleted my racist shit and nothing else happened to me" way) government. So yes, occasionally ineffective democracies that value human rights and freedoms (i.e. the west) is better than the CCP government, and will continue to be better now and into the foreseeable future.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    On a per capita basis, the US has more people in prison than there are Uyghurs in Chinese camps and Chinese residents in prison combined. The US invaded Iraq for oil colonization.
    - Larrikin 6y ago
      Your whataboutism didn't mention the ongoing protests that are working to fix the problems you're referencing which would never be allowed in China.
  - severino 6y ago
    Yes, you're right. My mistake was talking about better/worse governments, while we don't have to choose at all. I should rephrase it as: is our government good? I'm sure nobody can say it is, whichever government it may be. So that's why I find uncomfortable to hand all my data over to the ruling party in my country, while I don't care what a random CCP functionary can learn about the cafeterias I frequently go to.

systemvoltage 6y ago

I honestly think we give Chinese apps too much equal footing. In about 5-8 years, when China has insane surveillance network around the world (they already have), this comment is going to sound the most sensible thing to do - blanket ban any application developed and served by the CCP or similar government. People teeter-totter about righteousness and freedom of choice, but IMO we need to stop feeding the CCP with more power/$$$/influence ... NOW ... Freedom of choice is great when there is fairness and democratic values built in, when the government isn't on some Han-supremacy drug and expansionist motives. Someone will inevitably respond with whataboutism and smear American companies into the mix as if they're expressing their understanding of hypocracy and one-sidedness. It is supposed to be one-sided. The west offered two-way street which China declined to walk on. So, now all bets are off. Equivalency with the western apps/services/goods is no longer a valid counter argument. On fair, just, and rational grounds - I am a progressive. In unfair, unjust and irrational waters - I am a conservative.

jquery 6y ago
The CCP has already shown they’re willing to abuse TikTok to stir unrest in the USA, you aren’t even making a theoretical argument. I’m a lot more worried about China than Russia, when it comes to bad behavior by state actors.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  What?! I dont have any memory of "CCP abuses TikTok to stir unrest in USA" being reported. Is there really such evidence? If there is evidence, then please just ban the goddamn app out of any mobile smart phone platforms. It's too dangerous to open the lid of such mass bring-washing machine. Even in the Arab-spring, it was just passively allowing the information to propagate organically. No one with sane judgement should allow these apps being used as manipulation tools by any minority group...
- godelski 6y ago
  This is why I'm always confused my privacy arguments. When someone says that they want privacy the responses go like: reference Goebbels: "I have nothing to hide, so I'm not worried" Downplay: "They only read my emails and everything I write to sell me stuff better. Sometimes I need stuff. They're helping me!" As if it can only be used to sell and nothing else. World revolves around self: "Well ads don't affect me." Like it doesn't matter that everyone else is affected even if you aren't. Completely ignoring the fact that if someone can manipulate you to buy stuff they might be able to use it to manipulate you do do other things. I mean we have political ads. And Coke ads aren't there to sell you coke (they are there to make you feel better about your purchase). Frankly, to me it doesn't even matter if no one has done that yet (I'm aware of the clear evidence that people have) but that we're giving people the ability to do this in mass and in very precise ways. That just leads to a potential turn in democracy. "Just educating people" doesn't solve the problem either. Ads are still effective on smart people. So the question is "are the benefits ~~profits~~ worth the cost?" It is reasonable to think "yes", but I'm a resounding "no." Yes, we use political ads to "manipulate democracy" and the like, but a mass statewide commercial is a very different thing than an individualized ad targeted to a specific person. At least to me these are very different (and we still have regulations on what you can say in political ads). Where do we draw the line? We talk about data a lot here and what we can model with it. What will ads look like in 20-50 years if we don't draw a line in privacy and technology continues to become more powerful? I think individualized ads will look very different. We do need to determine what level of individualization we can target with an ad, and I don't see much of that happening.
  - jquery 6y ago
    Excellent comment, you changed my thinking on the issue. I feel like liberal, educated democracies are focused on the wrong problems. It’s only going to get harder to change course the longer we keep sailing in this direction of a laissez faire, anything-goes approach to software. Apple’s infamous walled garden solves this problem to some extent, but introduces others because it lacks due process, leading to corruption where money can solve any problem, and so apps like Tiktok get to abuse their trust with impunity.
    - 6y ago
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
“Equal” footing? China doesn’t allow anyone to use my app, instead I was required to have a conference call with Tencent where they insisted I give them all of my code so they can release their own version in China which they super cereal pinky promise they’ll give me all the revenue from. I declined and they made an incredibly shitty clone of my app instead which I was never allowed to compete with. Fuck chinks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ianmobbs 6y ago
> The west offered two-way street which China declined to walk on. What?
- MintelIE 6y ago
  It's pretty simple, China doesn't allow western companies access to its markets reciprocally. This isn't controversial or esoteric information. It's a well known fact.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    When two parties negotiate they generally try to negotiate in their personal interest. Given how many Western companies flocked to China the access was apparently still worth it. It's not like this is uncommon either. The US themselves did this under Hamilton's American System and Japan did it in the late 19th century when they maximized goods and technology coming in while trying to keep as much foreign influence out. It's a reasonable strategy and particularly understandable with a historical view of East-Asia, which doesn't have the best experience with opening up to Western companies. I never really understood where the problem is because China didn't kidnap Apple's CEO and forced them to build factories in China. If Americans think whatever China offers is not worth it they're free not to participate.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      Sure, "American" multinational corporation managers love to play ball with CCP to make money. That doesn't mean Americans citizens love it or that American government should support it.

radikalerludwig 6y ago

> a platform that is subject to the absolute control of a foreign government I'm sure you would argue that Google, MS and Apple are completely independent of the US government.

wpasc 6y ago
I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you are implying that the US influence over Google, MS, and Apple is comparable to China's influence over TikTok and other Chinese companies then that is an utterly false equivalence. I don't have links but it is well established the role and influence CCP has in Chinese companies and US companies have gone to great legal lengths to restrict the US Government's involvement in certain areas like the fight over encryption.
- radikalerludwig 6y ago
  >US companies have gone to great legal lengths to restrict the US Government's involvement in certain areas Yeah, they spend a fortune on lobbying - nonetheless they are very compliant with the US "national security". Keep them downvotes coming, Snowden never blew a whistle.
  - khuey 6y ago
    I'm sure the government considers the years long ongoing battle between Apple and the FBI over device encryption to be "very compliant".
godelski 6y ago
The issue is (as far as I know) the CCP has unfettered access to Chinese apps. On the other hand, the US government has to ask. While Google, MS, Apple, etc have all said "yes" plenty of times, they also have said "no" and are doing so more frequently as public opinion is changing on privacy. Literally the ability to say no is a big difference. If I am wrong about the unfettered access, let me know.
ls612 6y ago

president 6y ago

> subject to the absolute control of a foreign government Especially a foreign government that is considered a top adversary by the US and vice-versa.

grecy 6y ago

> subject to the absolute control of a foreign government National Security letters mean that for 95.75% of the world's population, what you just said applies to the USA.

severino 6y ago

Well, I'm more concerned about my platform being subject to the control of my own government. Because I don't care very much about foreign governments given I happen to be a western citizen that has nothing to do with that countries. But what about ours, do you think our government is better than theirs? For how long?

jeanvalmarc 6y ago
> do you think our government is better than theirs? For how long? America has problems, but your order-of-magnitude calibration is way off if you think a concentration-camp operating (i.e. the real kind with over a million people who committed no crime and are held just for their beliefs and culture) expansionist (Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan) totalitarian (speech is monitored and punished in a "go to prison, right away" manner rather than "twitter deleted my racist shit and nothing else happened to me" way) government. So yes, occasionally ineffective democracies that value human rights and freedoms (i.e. the west) is better than the CCP government, and will continue to be better now and into the foreseeable future.
- sukilot 6y ago
  On a per capita basis, the US has more people in prison than there are Uyghurs in Chinese camps and Chinese residents in prison combined. The US invaded Iraq for oil colonization.
  - Larrikin 6y ago
    Your whataboutism didn't mention the ongoing protests that are working to fix the problems you're referencing which would never be allowed in China.
- severino 6y ago
  Yes, you're right. My mistake was talking about better/worse governments, while we don't have to choose at all. I should rephrase it as: is our government good? I'm sure nobody can say it is, whichever government it may be. So that's why I find uncomfortable to hand all my data over to the ruling party in my country, while I don't care what a random CCP functionary can learn about the cafeterias I frequently go to.