4 ms·

>> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. In the USA. China has done is many times.

cblconfederate 6y ago
It looks like we should be expecting China to export more of its policies to the US ?
- apta 6y ago
  Slippery slope fallacy.
badRNG 6y ago
Yes, and the concerns about 1st Amendment precedence weren't referring to China either. I imagine China disallows end-to-end encrypted messaging apps as well, which is largely the basis of my concern.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Not sure why you are bringing up the 1st Amendment. Operating a social network app is not a protected form of free speech.
  - badRNG 6y ago
    My concerns are largely over the precedent that might allow banning end-to-end encrypted apps over "national security," but there is an argument to be made on 1st Amendment grounds. There are two 1A considerations here: whether an "app" is speech, and the speech of TikTok's users. If courts decide that TikTok is a "public forum," then there would be precedence to prevent the privation of this public forum in the interests of free speech. [1] On the other consideration, one of the landmark cases regarding software, Bernstein v. Department of Justice, ruled that code is speech, and this directly lead to the end of export control on encryption. [2] This has been further affirmed by a ruling in favor of the video game industry against a law banning the sale of games to minors in CA. [3] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 [2] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html
    - nazgulsenpai 6y ago
      This should be a top-level post. It saddens me the sheer number of people who accept the TikTok banning blindly because "national security" (not here so much but people I've talked to at work/other forums). This vague terminology could be adapted to encompass any communication that might be a threat to "national security" including encryption. Once the precedent is set it will be damn near impossible to go back; just look at the Patriot Act.

cblconfederate 6y ago

It looks like we should be expecting China to export more of its policies to the US ?

apta 6y ago
Slippery slope fallacy.

badRNG 6y ago

Yes, and the concerns about 1st Amendment precedence weren't referring to China either. I imagine China disallows end-to-end encrypted messaging apps as well, which is largely the basis of my concern.

threeseed 6y ago
Not sure why you are bringing up the 1st Amendment. Operating a social network app is not a protected form of free speech.
- badRNG 6y ago
  My concerns are largely over the precedent that might allow banning end-to-end encrypted apps over "national security," but there is an argument to be made on 1st Amendment grounds. There are two 1A considerations here: whether an "app" is speech, and the speech of TikTok's users. If courts decide that TikTok is a "public forum," then there would be precedence to prevent the privation of this public forum in the interests of free speech. [1] On the other consideration, one of the landmark cases regarding software, Bernstein v. Department of Justice, ruled that code is speech, and this directly lead to the end of export control on encryption. [2] This has been further affirmed by a ruling in favor of the video game industry against a law banning the sale of games to minors in CA. [3] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569 [2] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html
  - nazgulsenpai 6y ago
    This should be a top-level post. It saddens me the sheer number of people who accept the TikTok banning blindly because "national security" (not here so much but people I've talked to at work/other forums). This vague terminology could be adapted to encompass any communication that might be a threat to "national security" including encryption. Once the precedent is set it will be damn near impossible to go back; just look at the Patriot Act.