4 ms·

The US is not really better for those of us that are not US citizens though. Yes, in theory, US stands for freedom and democracy, but any protections are protec

by vertis 6y ago

The US is not really better for those of us that are not US citizens though. Yes, in theory, US stands for freedom and democracy, but any protections are protections for US citizens, not for Australian or EU citizens. So from a purely rights and spying perspective having the app be a US app vs a China app makes little difference to me (not that I'm young enough to be a TikTok user anyway). As soon as you add 'national security' clauses and hide everything away, you don't really have due process any more. You have two paths. The public one, and the one where it's possible to assert (possibly falsely) that it's a matter of national security.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
glaive123 6y ago
Apparently you are not aware of China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which requires that “Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law.” Unlike American companies who receive requests from the U.S. government, ByteDance simply has no recourse when faced with orders from China’s authoritarian government.
- ptx 6y ago
  US companies similarly have to comply with secret orders[1] from the US government, so I agree with the parent that it looks pretty much the same from the perspective of us foreigners. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
  - glaive123 6y ago
    What you have shown is in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, close or equivalent. It is not even close, by a country mile. Taken from the article you shared: "By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails." "Moreover, a recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court."
    - ptx 6y ago
      That the company may eventually be allowed to tell us after they fact that they surrendered out data to the US government is not much of a comfort. In any case, I'm not sure that any of the protections apply to foreigners (the criticism is all about how they might accidentally target Americans) so for those who are neither Chinese nor American citizens, it makes no difference. I would be happy to be completely wrong about this if you have information about how foreign citizens' rights are protected from US intelligence gathering. The NSLs were merely meant as an example to show how US companies can also be compelled to assist in their government's intelligence gathering. You're right that they can (in theory?) challenge the secrecy part specifically.
      - glaive123 6y ago
        > That the company may eventually be allowed to tell us after they fact that they surrendered out data to the US government is not much of a comfort. Did you read my comment? The request can be fought in court, and the request does not give them access to actual contents. For example, they can NOT get the contents of an email. Are you not aware that Apple has beaten the FBI several times in court and did not have to unlock an iPhone? > In any case, I'm not sure that any of the protections apply to foreigners This has nothing to do with citizens or foreigners. This is about companies. US Companies do not need to comply with US Government requests for information, Chinese companies MUST comply with ALL government requests to ALL information.
        ptx 6y ago
        I did read your comment, where you pointed out that companies can challenge the nondisclosure provision. It doesn't say anything about challenging the order itself. Edit: Also, regarding companies/citizens/foreigners, this is the NSA program under which it collects data from American companies and promises to only use it to spy on foreigners: "PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies ... U.S. government officials have ... defended the program, asserting that it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

by vertis 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

glaive123 6y ago

Apparently you are not aware of China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which requires that “Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law.” Unlike American companies who receive requests from the U.S. government, ByteDance simply has no recourse when faced with orders from China’s authoritarian government.

ptx 6y ago
US companies similarly have to comply with secret orders[1] from the US government, so I agree with the parent that it looks pretty much the same from the perspective of us foreigners. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
- glaive123 6y ago
  What you have shown is in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, close or equivalent. It is not even close, by a country mile. Taken from the article you shared: "By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails." "Moreover, a recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court."
  - ptx 6y ago
    That the company may eventually be allowed to tell us after they fact that they surrendered out data to the US government is not much of a comfort. In any case, I'm not sure that any of the protections apply to foreigners (the criticism is all about how they might accidentally target Americans) so for those who are neither Chinese nor American citizens, it makes no difference. I would be happy to be completely wrong about this if you have information about how foreign citizens' rights are protected from US intelligence gathering. The NSLs were merely meant as an example to show how US companies can also be compelled to assist in their government's intelligence gathering. You're right that they can (in theory?) challenge the secrecy part specifically.
    - glaive123 6y ago
      > That the company may eventually be allowed to tell us after they fact that they surrendered out data to the US government is not much of a comfort. Did you read my comment? The request can be fought in court, and the request does not give them access to actual contents. For example, they can NOT get the contents of an email. Are you not aware that Apple has beaten the FBI several times in court and did not have to unlock an iPhone? > In any case, I'm not sure that any of the protections apply to foreigners This has nothing to do with citizens or foreigners. This is about companies. US Companies do not need to comply with US Government requests for information, Chinese companies MUST comply with ALL government requests to ALL information.
      - ptx 6y ago
        I did read your comment, where you pointed out that companies can challenge the nondisclosure provision. It doesn't say anything about challenging the order itself. Edit: Also, regarding companies/citizens/foreigners, this is the NSA program under which it collects data from American companies and promises to only use it to spy on foreigners: "PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies ... U.S. government officials have ... defended the program, asserting that it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)