5 ms·

It is absolutely foolish for any country other than China to allow TikTok within their borders. You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for n

It is absolutely foolish for any country other than China to allow TikTok within their borders. You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for non-US countries to use US services. I think that is also a reasonable question, and deserves reflection.

lightgreen 6y ago
Google is 1000 times more transparent company than ByteDance. It is OK to use US services for non-US countries.
- sschueller 6y ago
  Says the USA... "You can trust us, we don't listen on your foreign leaders". Come on, that ship has sailed years ago.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    It was US government agencies, not private companies who were spying. So, to clarify, other countries can use US private company services, but should not blindly trust their secret data to the US government.
    - HenryBemis 6y ago
      USA has a track record of issuing a request for info (if not other shadier methods) tied with a gag order. So... and if the Snowden/Wikileaks/ATT room 641A has taught us anything (combined with the 5-9-14 eyes), is that we cannot trust any government when it has enough power to spy on its people. IT DOES. Major difference between USA, UK, France, Spain, Sweden etc. Vs Russia, Iran, China, Turkey, North Korea is that you end up in a cell, never to be seen again, tortured for your opinions. I do believe that there are some scountries like India, Pakistan a a couple of others that play in both courts. Semi democratic and semi dictatorial, at the same time..
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        That major difference you mentioned means that the leak will be much more likely in the US, company will try to battle the order in court, the government will think twice before issuing a request to a company, and the net result is spyings are several orders of magnitude less often in western countries (I have no data to back up that statement).
        HenryBemis 6y ago
        > the government will think twice before issuing a request to a company No, they will definitely not think. Govs/politicians/people in places of power are so arrogant that they will continue the BAU. They will pass another stricter "patriot act/snooper charter", they will issue a tougher gag order, and they will continue as they already do. They will increse the penalties for violators, but they will not stop. The "beast" has a hungry mouth, and it needs that info. When was the last time we saw someone with power just turning the volume down? Never. Only if they get a hard slap in their faces, they pause for a minute, then they change/re-org and continue in a new method/under new legislation, and life goes on. Even in an ideal (human) society (I like to use the "Star Trek TNG" in my examples), someone(s) has absolute power into reading private encrypted messages, and we just see a wise Jean-Luc (Sir Patrick Stewart) that does not abuse his right/privilege. But he does have the access.
        lightgreen 6y ago
        > definitely You are dealing in absolutes. Let me put is way. In dictatorship non-free spy hungry US the cost of making a request to a private company for a government official is much much higher than the same request in for example China. Because of checks and balances and more or less working elections and free press and now the free internet. When request is harder to make, the government makes fewer requests, that’s it.
        roenxi 6y ago
        > the leak will be much more likely in the US After what has happened to Snowden and Assange? I hope the leakers share your blind optimism. Snowden literally had to flee to Russia, of all the countries in the world, for political asylum.
    - samoa42 6y ago
      u serious?
    - apexalpha 6y ago
      >It was US government agencies, not private companies who were spying. Excuse me? I think we've all seen the Snowden and other leaks that essentially prove that all US companies have no problem handing over direct access to the US government.
- stunt 6y ago
  > Google is 1000 times more transparent company than ByteDance. It is OK to use US services for non-US countries. Are we talking about freedom of speech? I 100% agree. Otherwise, I don't think Google is a good example. There are actually many bad cases among US and EU companies. Just consider a few blow ups that we had with Google (e.g. Street view), Cicso (the issue with NSA), RSA (also the story about NSA), Facebook scandals, Crypto AG, Gemalto SIM cards, and etc. Are they less evil or more transparent? I don't think so. It's the system that's more transparent in the West not companies. So when something leaks it's more likely that we are informed and it will blow up. If you want to link everything to national security, then obviously domestic services are right choices. But, I'm still against banning and blocking other services. It's just against how I like the world to look like. It also sets a bad standard for other countries to inherit it. You don't want to disconnect the world more than it's now. History shows that it has bad consequences no matter where you are standing. I think the right move would be setting good data protection laws (e.g. GDPR), and educating people about data privacy and help them to understand all the risks that are involved.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > It's the system that's more transparent in the West not companies Kind of. But also more transparent western system makes private companies behave to avoid making the front page in the next scandal. > Are we talking about freedom of speech? We are talking about the level of public understanding of what’s going on inside the company. What data the company is collecting and where it sends it for example. (Please, note the transparency is not binary: we don’t know everything about Google, but we know much more about Google internals than about ByteDance).
jeswin 6y ago
> You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for non-US countries to use US services. I think that is also a reasonable question, and deserves reflection. It's a fair sentiment (and held by others as well on this thread), but IMHO there's no equivalence. In democracies, violence against their own people (or others) will invite opposition from their citizens - while in China people won't even know what's going on. The consequences are stark - just last week 7 million people lost the liberties they enjoyed. What's a comparable loss due to US snooping?
- ketzu 6y ago
  > What's a comparable loss due to US snooping? The list of interventions in foreign countries by the US is very very long ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U... ), although not all of them are unwelcome or unwarranted. So is the list of people killed by the US. According to their own words "We Kill People Based on Metadata". (e.g., https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-we-kill-people-based-on-metadata https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-... )
- eirini1 6y ago
  The US installed a dictatorship in my country in the 70s. China hasn't done anything of the sort, except ship me cheap stuff through aliexpress. I know who I would choose as my designated data thief if I had to choose between the US stealing my data and China stealing my data.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
nicbou 6y ago
It's not equivalent, but I am certainly wary of having my data handled by US companies that aren't big enough to be scared of GDPR. My phone number and email address spread to many more American marketing lists than European ones, even though I rarely visit. Many of my Facebook ads result from my yearly visit to American cities. I just can't trust American businesses to use my data for the intended purpose only.
- usvsthem 6y ago
  >>I am certainly wary of having my data handled by US companies that aren't big enough to be scared of GDPR. In that one comment, you have explained everything anyone needs to know as to why most of the tech innovation originates in the US and not from within Europe, and also why this situation is probably never going to change.
  - nicbou 6y ago
    This is fine by me. I am glad to let the Americans pay the price and reap the benefits. I value different things.
    - w7euudeheh 6y ago
      As an American I wanted to thank you. Sometimes I see Europe talking about their place in the world and wonder if they might matter as anything but a cash cow some day, comments like this show me that the answer is no.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Not sure if I should be more concerned about companies too small to be scared of the GDPR, or too big to be scared.
  - nicbou 6y ago
    The large companies react to GDPR. Europe has already shown that it's willing to go after Google, Apple and others. It's the small companies that fall in the cracks that worry me.
pankajdoharey 6y ago
"Foolish" may be a bit too far but yes privacy is a concern and can be imposed to operate within the borders of a country. I dont think banning an app is a solution , tomorrow another app may comeup would you ban that too? It is easier for countries to just pass laws and ask companies to comply with them instead of out right banning them. Also banning is so anti capital. And market will punish you for being anti capital.
Deganta 6y ago
I'm not from the USA, but if I can choose if the USA, or China gets my data, I will choose the USA everytime. Sure, America does a lot of shady stuff, but the situation in China is just way worse in pretty much every way imaginable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ketzu 6y ago
  I would be interested in seeing an actual "risk analysis" for people from different countries. While I would like no country to have my data, if China/US were the only (and exclusive!) options, I guess the actual risk of negative consequences from "who has the data" is not equally distributed. I guess, in general, within chinas sphere of influence you are better off having the us have your data and the other way around (e.g., ending up in a chinese prison is 'unlikely' while in europe the same way it's unlikely that ending on an american nofly list or in guantanamo is unlikely while in china). The countries inbetween or people traveling a lot would be more interesting. Unfortunately, the most likely scenario is that everyone gets the data. edit: I put "risk analysis" in quotes, because it doesn't feel like the right word for this hypothetical thing.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Yes, although you're more likely to be extradited from most of the West to the US than to China. So if you're a dissident against the US you may be safer using Chinese technologies.
  - w7euudeheh 6y ago
    What does this even mean? Being a dissident is allowed in the US going by google's definition. What's not allowed is stealing a bunch of shit and then giving it away to foreign nations like Snowden did.

lightgreen 6y ago

Google is 1000 times more transparent company than ByteDance. It is OK to use US services for non-US countries.

sschueller 6y ago
Says the USA... "You can trust us, we don't listen on your foreign leaders". Come on, that ship has sailed years ago.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  It was US government agencies, not private companies who were spying. So, to clarify, other countries can use US private company services, but should not blindly trust their secret data to the US government.
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    USA has a track record of issuing a request for info (if not other shadier methods) tied with a gag order. So... and if the Snowden/Wikileaks/ATT room 641A has taught us anything (combined with the 5-9-14 eyes), is that we cannot trust any government when it has enough power to spy on its people. IT DOES. Major difference between USA, UK, France, Spain, Sweden etc. Vs Russia, Iran, China, Turkey, North Korea is that you end up in a cell, never to be seen again, tortured for your opinions. I do believe that there are some scountries like India, Pakistan a a couple of others that play in both courts. Semi democratic and semi dictatorial, at the same time..
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      That major difference you mentioned means that the leak will be much more likely in the US, company will try to battle the order in court, the government will think twice before issuing a request to a company, and the net result is spyings are several orders of magnitude less often in western countries (I have no data to back up that statement).
      - HenryBemis 6y ago
        > the government will think twice before issuing a request to a company No, they will definitely not think. Govs/politicians/people in places of power are so arrogant that they will continue the BAU. They will pass another stricter "patriot act/snooper charter", they will issue a tougher gag order, and they will continue as they already do. They will increse the penalties for violators, but they will not stop. The "beast" has a hungry mouth, and it needs that info. When was the last time we saw someone with power just turning the volume down? Never. Only if they get a hard slap in their faces, they pause for a minute, then they change/re-org and continue in a new method/under new legislation, and life goes on. Even in an ideal (human) society (I like to use the "Star Trek TNG" in my examples), someone(s) has absolute power into reading private encrypted messages, and we just see a wise Jean-Luc (Sir Patrick Stewart) that does not abuse his right/privilege. But he does have the access.
        lightgreen 6y ago
        > definitely You are dealing in absolutes. Let me put is way. In dictatorship non-free spy hungry US the cost of making a request to a private company for a government official is much much higher than the same request in for example China. Because of checks and balances and more or less working elections and free press and now the free internet. When request is harder to make, the government makes fewer requests, that’s it.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        > the leak will be much more likely in the US After what has happened to Snowden and Assange? I hope the leakers share your blind optimism. Snowden literally had to flee to Russia, of all the countries in the world, for political asylum.
  - samoa42 6y ago
    u serious?
  - apexalpha 6y ago
    >It was US government agencies, not private companies who were spying. Excuse me? I think we've all seen the Snowden and other leaks that essentially prove that all US companies have no problem handing over direct access to the US government.
stunt 6y ago
> Google is 1000 times more transparent company than ByteDance. It is OK to use US services for non-US countries. Are we talking about freedom of speech? I 100% agree. Otherwise, I don't think Google is a good example. There are actually many bad cases among US and EU companies. Just consider a few blow ups that we had with Google (e.g. Street view), Cicso (the issue with NSA), RSA (also the story about NSA), Facebook scandals, Crypto AG, Gemalto SIM cards, and etc. Are they less evil or more transparent? I don't think so. It's the system that's more transparent in the West not companies. So when something leaks it's more likely that we are informed and it will blow up. If you want to link everything to national security, then obviously domestic services are right choices. But, I'm still against banning and blocking other services. It's just against how I like the world to look like. It also sets a bad standard for other countries to inherit it. You don't want to disconnect the world more than it's now. History shows that it has bad consequences no matter where you are standing. I think the right move would be setting good data protection laws (e.g. GDPR), and educating people about data privacy and help them to understand all the risks that are involved.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > It's the system that's more transparent in the West not companies Kind of. But also more transparent western system makes private companies behave to avoid making the front page in the next scandal. > Are we talking about freedom of speech? We are talking about the level of public understanding of what’s going on inside the company. What data the company is collecting and where it sends it for example. (Please, note the transparency is not binary: we don’t know everything about Google, but we know much more about Google internals than about ByteDance).

jeswin 6y ago

> You might fairly ask whether or not it is equally foolish for non-US countries to use US services. I think that is also a reasonable question, and deserves reflection. It's a fair sentiment (and held by others as well on this thread), but IMHO there's no equivalence. In democracies, violence against their own people (or others) will invite opposition from their citizens - while in China people won't even know what's going on. The consequences are stark - just last week 7 million people lost the liberties they enjoyed. What's a comparable loss due to US snooping?

ketzu 6y ago
> What's a comparable loss due to US snooping? The list of interventions in foreign countries by the US is very very long ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U... ), although not all of them are unwelcome or unwarranted. So is the list of people killed by the US. According to their own words "We Kill People Based on Metadata". (e.g., https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-we-kill-people-based-on-metadata https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-... )
eirini1 6y ago
The US installed a dictatorship in my country in the 70s. China hasn't done anything of the sort, except ship me cheap stuff through aliexpress. I know who I would choose as my designated data thief if I had to choose between the US stealing my data and China stealing my data.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

nicbou 6y ago

It's not equivalent, but I am certainly wary of having my data handled by US companies that aren't big enough to be scared of GDPR. My phone number and email address spread to many more American marketing lists than European ones, even though I rarely visit. Many of my Facebook ads result from my yearly visit to American cities. I just can't trust American businesses to use my data for the intended purpose only.

usvsthem 6y ago
>>I am certainly wary of having my data handled by US companies that aren't big enough to be scared of GDPR. In that one comment, you have explained everything anyone needs to know as to why most of the tech innovation originates in the US and not from within Europe, and also why this situation is probably never going to change.
- nicbou 6y ago
  This is fine by me. I am glad to let the Americans pay the price and reap the benefits. I value different things.
  - w7euudeheh 6y ago
    As an American I wanted to thank you. Sometimes I see Europe talking about their place in the world and wonder if they might matter as anything but a cash cow some day, comments like this show me that the answer is no.
saagarjha 6y ago
Not sure if I should be more concerned about companies too small to be scared of the GDPR, or too big to be scared.
- nicbou 6y ago
  The large companies react to GDPR. Europe has already shown that it's willing to go after Google, Apple and others. It's the small companies that fall in the cracks that worry me.

pankajdoharey 6y ago

"Foolish" may be a bit too far but yes privacy is a concern and can be imposed to operate within the borders of a country. I dont think banning an app is a solution , tomorrow another app may comeup would you ban that too? It is easier for countries to just pass laws and ask companies to comply with them instead of out right banning them. Also banning is so anti capital. And market will punish you for being anti capital.

Deganta 6y ago

I'm not from the USA, but if I can choose if the USA, or China gets my data, I will choose the USA everytime. Sure, America does a lot of shady stuff, but the situation in China is just way worse in pretty much every way imaginable.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ketzu 6y ago
I would be interested in seeing an actual "risk analysis" for people from different countries. While I would like no country to have my data, if China/US were the only (and exclusive!) options, I guess the actual risk of negative consequences from "who has the data" is not equally distributed. I guess, in general, within chinas sphere of influence you are better off having the us have your data and the other way around (e.g., ending up in a chinese prison is 'unlikely' while in europe the same way it's unlikely that ending on an american nofly list or in guantanamo is unlikely while in china). The countries inbetween or people traveling a lot would be more interesting. Unfortunately, the most likely scenario is that everyone gets the data. edit: I put "risk analysis" in quotes, because it doesn't feel like the right word for this hypothetical thing.
pjc50 6y ago
Yes, although you're more likely to be extradited from most of the West to the US than to China. So if you're a dissident against the US you may be safer using Chinese technologies.
- w7euudeheh 6y ago
  What does this even mean? Being a dissident is allowed in the US going by google's definition. What's not allowed is stealing a bunch of shit and then giving it away to foreign nations like Snowden did.