5 ms·
That would be relevant for the discussion if the stated reason for banning TikTok were specific, concrete and actually happening actions of politically-motivate
by Slartie 6y ago
That would be relevant for the discussion if the stated reason for banning TikTok were specific, concrete and actually happening actions of politically-motivated censorship. However, the stated reason is "national security" due to potential access to data of American people. Which - surprise! - is exactly what the CLOUD Act provides the US government with regard to ANY app with server-side data storage operated by ANY US-based corporation.
- ethanbond 6y ago“[CLOUD Act allows] federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.” In case you missed it, I’ll emphasize the relevant point: “via warrant or subpoena” This is not “exactly,” as you say, the same provision.
- Slartie 6y agoAnd what exactly prevents the US government from creating any kind of subpoena they'd like? They don't even have to defend it anywhere, because "national security" trumps the normal judicative process. The targets of the subpoena aren't allowed to talk about, and the original owners of the data sought by the government will never even see the subpoena.
- ethanbond 6y agoLook, if you don’t believe in the western systems of checks and balances despite the long, long track record of it performing with greater regard for human dignity than any regime without checks and balances, we’re just not going to be able to have a conversation here. No sensible person would suggest the American system is perfect. But to suggest that an imperfect system of checks and balances is tantamount to an actual unashamed dictatorship is equally divorced from reality. There’s nowhere for this conversation to go, so have a good weekend!
- trasz 6y agoThing is, there are no checks and balances for this area of government activity. Otherwise why would american companies include government backdoors in their products?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> there are no checks and balances for this area of government activity Of course there are. Congress can pass laws limiting executive actions. And the courts can constrain it.
- trasz 6y agoOkay, so in theory maybe there could be checks and balances in place. In practice, however, there are instead secret court orders, subpoenas, or "national security letters".
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> there are instead secret court orders, subpoenas, or "national security letters" None of which apply to this action, which has been publicly promulgated and will be publicly enforced and challenged. Also, secret courts and NSLs are an abomination. Subpoenas are legal demands for information.
- trasz 6y agoNone of which _are known to_ apply to this action. Sure. But it still doesn't change the root of the problem: the alleged security problems with Chinese products, caused by government being able to force manufacturers to do whatever their intelligence agencies require, are in fact real - but for US products, not Chinese ones.
- jskell725 6y agoCompanies tend to fight back when it's profitable to fight back; and do their best to ignore the government otherwise. See: this week's tech CEO house hearing. I can't recall this example of the backdoors; and if you say "Clipper Chips" I'm going home.