13 ms·

This is disappointing yet expected from the executive. What's more disappointing is watching the thunderous applause from technologists here and elsewhere as s

This is disappointing yet expected from the executive. What's more disappointing is watching the thunderous applause from technologists here and elsewhere as software is outlawed which is not otherwise illegal and is not being litigated as illegal. We should not cheer on the restriction of any software on nationalistic terms. Content is one thing, physical equipment another, but algorithms should be borderless. Most in the community disagree with encryption export restrictions, why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? 2A groups recognize slippery slope precedents, why can't technologists? If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been. (reposted from the now-buried https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24515461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24515461)

vsareto 6y ago
>why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? It's easier to verify what a borderless, open algorithm does. It's a lot harder to do that with packaged software. Has TikTok posted the source of their app publicly the same as those borderless and open algorithms? Can we verify what we install is the same as that posted source with no changes? You can ban finished products without banning their constituent parts. American companies probably do many of the things that Tiktok does, but this is political and that's where the unfairness comes from.
- drchopchop 6y ago
  So, if American companies quietly send user data to repressive governments, that's totally fine? What if it was sending voter data to Russian state actors?
  - vsareto 6y ago
    No, that's why I said it was political unfairness.
whiddershins 6y ago
If another nation state knows so much about American citizens, and can use that to manipulate, blackmail or persuade them, if that nation state has indicated hostility towards us ...
- kodablah 6y ago
  Legislation can be drafted to make such data proliferation illegal. That's not what's happening here. This is an end-run around legislature, which executive orders often are, and should be condemned as such. You have to separate the intent/justification (or what you perceive as the desired intent/justification) from the action. "Where were you when your country first started banning software?"
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  How many times before have you heard of an app being banned as a preventative measure against blackmail? The grasping at straws to have the ban not reflect poorly on the US and conservatism is getting out of hand.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  How is this not a concern with the private entities that already collect this kind of information, and how is this any different than those entities sharing all that with the federal government?
ghoomketu 6y ago
Yet every time this is posted the default response is that China has done worse to US companies, so It's only fair! How do you reply to that? (not asking rhetorically)
- komali2 6y ago
  Being Bad is Bad
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dirtyid 6y ago
  US media companies are free to operate in China, provided they follow Chinese media laws that applies to other domestic platforms. TikTok operates in US under US laws, that's technically fair and reciprocal. If people mean reciprocal in spirit, like joint venture, then TikTok partnering with Oracle and storing data in US server is reciprocal in spirit. You can apply this reciprocal state of exception for all Chinese companies in US, provided JV partners reciprocate in perks (i.e. in China JVs provide massive land and other subsidies). You can even legislate tech transfers for TikTok's algorithm. And for the purpose of trade and commercial entities operating to make a profit that's sufficient. But I surmise the crux of these bad-faith reciprocal arguments is that US should be able to impose its values on foreign markets, and US companies should be able operate in those markets to spread US values like how Chinese platforms operating under US values can shape US opinions. That's valid, but an that's a conversation well past trade fairness which TikTok has already met. But this isn't about trade fairness, this & Clean Network is about Chinese containment and US hegemony. And that's also valid. China's going to do what they do, the question people here needs to ask is should America also do what China does.
  - perennate 6y ago
    I think the US passing legislation that requires foreign companies to transfer their technology (or worse, copying brutally repressive CCP laws on media) would be far far far more damaging than surgically banning companies from specific countries under a reciprocal reaction.
richardlblair 6y ago
It's easy to see how this sets precedence. Which is terrifying for the global economy when a protectionist president who swings executive orders around the way he does is in power. Any company who has lots of data (every tech company) that is successful can easily fall victim to this.
kanox 6y ago
It's also disappointing that Biden apparently has no opinion on this issue? You would think that this ban would be a topic in the election but as far as I can tell democrats are fully onboard with the whole "china bad" thing and restricting social media.
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  Biden appear to be pro-China and has gone on record saying he would end Trump’s China tariffs.
  - Finnucane 6y ago
    The tariffs are stupid and have not really had any positive result.
    - abc-xyz 6y ago
      I disagree. They’ve done a lot of economic damage to China (besides war then it’s probably the best way we have to combat the CCP), and they’ve forced companies to move their manufacturing out of China. Even high-end tech stuff like the iPhone is starting to get assembled outside of China. In response to the tariffs, China also ended their domestic ownership rules (requiring 50% ownership by Chinese companies) for auto companies and financial institutions.
      - Finnucane 6y ago
        It hasn't helped US manufacturing at all. As was claimed it would.
        abc-xyz 6y ago
        I think the people that expected this to happen are the same people who thought he’d succeed in building the wall. Although it probably has accelerated the need for automated manufacturing capabilities. I’m sure there are many who believed this, but I’m also sure there are many like me who supported it solely because it would hurt China, knowing full well that the companies would just move their manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, etc.
fluffernutter 6y ago
Fuck the executive.
api 6y ago
This is a national security issue and I doubt it will change under a Democratic administration. We do not want Chinese control of our payments, nor do we want the amount of surveillance that implies being in the hands of any foreign government... let alone an increasingly totalitarian one with camps, slave labor, and many other alarming human rights abuses. Think Russian election meddling was bad in 2016? It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish. China armed with deep social graph data could completely own an election. They are better financed and smarter. There is a ton of naïveté on display here.
- sitkack 6y ago
  > let alone an increasingly totalitarian one with camps, slave labor, and many other alarming human rights abuses. which government is this? It doesn't narrow it down. > It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish. I think you underestimate the technical acumen of the Russian psyops campaign. Do not measure it by what it looks like measure it by its outcome. Don't underestimate the Russians, ever. > There is a ton of naïveté on display here. True
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  I've got news for you about our ICE facilities and prison labor system. Looks like it's time to dismantle the Utah Data Center.
noelsusman 6y ago
I think this ban is kinda dumb, but I also don't understand why algorithms should be borderless and free from regulation? What makes software so special?
zwaps 6y ago
Yes, however, whether the harvesting of content and data is illegal or not, it occurs. The US has no power over Chinese firms by just "making it illegal", as numerous examples have shown in the past - especially if these firms are controlled by the CCP. It's not that American firms don't act equally despicable with our private data, it's simply that the US has the ability to punish them. The CCP is obviously doing the same thing, which is why the majority of comparable products to these services is not allowed in China.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  I envy the naivete required to believe that the U.S. government's chief intent in this case is to maintain the ability to police bad actors who might abuse this data, and not to ensure it has total control to use the data for its own (often nefarious) ends.
vorpalhex 6y ago
There's a reason it's the commerce department doing these things. We do not have strong legal frameworks around data privacy (we should but that's a different battle). We do have controls for foreign entities who recklessly abuse our system and this is that control. If you're going to abuse privacy law, vacuum up PII and behaviorals, and send them to a foreign government database used for blackmail[1] then yes, we're going to freeze your transactions and tell you off. [1] - https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/why-we-should-be-worried-by-chinas-overseas-key-individual-database/ https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/why-we-should-be-worrie...
jariel 6y ago
This is upside down - it ignores the reality of what is happening. WeChat in particular is de-facto a tool of the CCP, it's a giant information gathering and control apparatus that is used to serve the organs of CCP authoritarianism. It's 'disappointing' that people don't seem to understand the nature of these systems. If you dare to 'say the wrong thing' on WeChat - you risk your life and career to arbitrary detainment and punishment. If you speak out on HK protests on WeChat, you may very well never be able to enter the country, and your peers will be flagged. Here's some research [1] WeChat censorship [2] Here's is Amnesty International's view of WeChat Tencent - literally 0/100 score for 'privacy'. [3] The CCP implants state organs into every company in China, a 'private controlling entity' to ensure the board, executives comply with state directives [4] From the Guardian: "One recent survey by the Central Organisation Department, the party’s personnel body, found that 68% of China’s private companies had party bodies by 2016, and 70% of foreign enterprises. Although these figures sound high, they don’t match the targets the party has set for itself. In Xi’s old stamping ground of Zhejiang, for example, officials set a target in August 2018 to have cells inside 95% of private businesses." [5] Tencent/WeChat, possibly TikTok - they are under the control of the CCP and far from being any kind of source of 'freedom' - they are 'enemy number 1' in creating a dystopian nightmare. The actions against Tencent/Bytedance should not be arbitrary edicts from the White House - issues need to be codified in law, or in terms of trade policy, and then applied fairly and objectively, but the outcome is appropriate. [1] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ [2] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/ [3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-messaging-apps-best-protect-your-privacy/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-me... [4] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-the-role-of-chinese-communist-party-committees/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business-xi-jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...
- SkyMarshal 6y ago
  Good post, good info. You're either being downvoted by CCP bots, or by people who want to continue to believe there's some equivalence b/t a constitutional democracy and an authoritarian dictatorship.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
This whole thing shows the extent to which the powers that be consider social media not as some free-formed independent part of the economy, but rather as an essential tool for surveillance, which is crucial to the intelligence infrastructure of the country. When you view it through that lens it becomes obvious why the U.S. government will not allow a foreign power to gain a major foothold in it with something like TikTok. Each of the major empires (US, China, Russia) will create their own walled ecosystems for harvesting and cataloging data about their populace, and will fiercely resist any attempts by the others to gain a purchase.
koheripbal 6y ago
Justifications aside, it seems like we are moving to a multipolar internet. I wonder how far down the stack that fragmentation will occur.
- perennate 6y ago
  So far, the primary country that has developed its own fragmented internet is China. The response from India, the US, and others merely represents a reciprocal retaliation to the CCP's arbitrary bans on foreign internet service companies, just as Canada retaliated to US-imposed aluminum tariffs with its own tariffs. Until countries begin imposing these types of bans in a non-reciprocal fashion (i.e., targeting countries other than China), there is no reason to believe that the internet will become further fragmented outside of China. Furthermore, the main goal of reciprocal retaliation is to discourage the original activity, so if anything, reciprocal actions by India and the US will prevent further fragmentation of the internet. Arguing that the US should not engage in these actions is like arguing that Canada should not respond to US-imposed tariffs with its own tariffs on US goods. Failing to reciprocate would lead to more tariffs, not less.
seebetter 6y ago
“Human rights” aka nationalistic terms. Let’s pretend that relativism is flawed. Now make your argument.
dheera 6y ago
"Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S." So basically Apple users are screwed because of their strict control of their OS, but Android users will be fine, because you can just go to http://www.wechat.com/ http://www.wechat.com/ and hit "Direct Download" and bypass the Google Play store entirely. Yay Android!
nickfromseattle 6y ago
>why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? The argument for import restrictions is giving up control to foreign governments. For example, Europe is in a very rough spot because their countries run on software built by US companies, subject to the whims of US law enforcement. The biggest threat being 3 letter agencies. The CIA does a lot of spying on behalf of US corporations to drive US corporate interests. [0] The US army banned Tik Tok from service member phones because of the risk of leaking data on troop movement, sensitive communication on the device outside of Tik Tok, etc [1] [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/army-bans-tiktok-cloud-hopper-email-scam/ https://www.wired.com/story/army-bans-tiktok-cloud-hopper-em...
- ordinaryperson 6y ago
  > The CIA does a lot of spying on behalf of US corporations to drive US corporate interests. Luckily Europe doesn't do any spying. https://thecorrespondent.com/6257/how-european-spy-technology-falls-into-the-wrong-hands/2168866237604-51234153 https://thecorrespondent.com/6257/how-european-spy-technolog...
  - nickfromseattle 6y ago
    This is absolutely true, and I hope my OP didn't infer they didn't. The critical difference is US companies own Europe's communication infrastructure (Windows, Office 365, GSuite, Azure, AWS, Slack, etc), and not the other way around.
    - ordinaryperson 6y ago
      Sure. Problem is, the US government does not own US companies. After the Snowden leaks, for example, Google did a lot of hardening to its servers i.e. ensure all of its internal traffic is encrypted. If you have evidence that Microsoft, Amazon and Google are totally willing to forgo the security and privacy interests of their customers in favor of pleasing the US Government, please, present some evidence for it. I'm eager to read it.
drieddust 6y ago
Nations exist and so does nation boundaries. Why you want to pretend otherwise? Chinese Communist Party puts unfair restrictions so why others should allow CCP to have free reign?
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I can't agree with you as the Chinese government doesn't seem to be willing to recognize the USA's ability to control data on it's own citizens just like in all other countries have the option to do. China is clearly becoming a hostile authoritarian regime that would love to have all the data it can on the leaders of tomorrow. Blackmail data in particular. There is no clear path right now for TicToc to block that data from heading overseas and it doesn't seem to be taking the USA seriously on the matter. No one cares about their algorithm, that is proprietary and welcome to stay there in China. I agree that the USA should be more forthcoming on whether or not they have real evidence on data harvesting on Americans, I would like to see that happen.
malwarebytess 6y ago
> If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been. What can we do to ensure this happens?

vsareto 6y ago

>why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? It's easier to verify what a borderless, open algorithm does. It's a lot harder to do that with packaged software. Has TikTok posted the source of their app publicly the same as those borderless and open algorithms? Can we verify what we install is the same as that posted source with no changes? You can ban finished products without banning their constituent parts. American companies probably do many of the things that Tiktok does, but this is political and that's where the unfairness comes from.

drchopchop 6y ago
So, if American companies quietly send user data to repressive governments, that's totally fine? What if it was sending voter data to Russian state actors?
- vsareto 6y ago
  No, that's why I said it was political unfairness.

whiddershins 6y ago

If another nation state knows so much about American citizens, and can use that to manipulate, blackmail or persuade them, if that nation state has indicated hostility towards us ...

kodablah 6y ago
Legislation can be drafted to make such data proliferation illegal. That's not what's happening here. This is an end-run around legislature, which executive orders often are, and should be condemned as such. You have to separate the intent/justification (or what you perceive as the desired intent/justification) from the action. "Where were you when your country first started banning software?"
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
How many times before have you heard of an app being banned as a preventative measure against blackmail? The grasping at straws to have the ban not reflect poorly on the US and conservatism is getting out of hand.
jimktrains2 6y ago
How is this not a concern with the private entities that already collect this kind of information, and how is this any different than those entities sharing all that with the federal government?

ghoomketu 6y ago

Yet every time this is posted the default response is that China has done worse to US companies, so It's only fair! How do you reply to that? (not asking rhetorically)

komali2 6y ago
Being Bad is Bad
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dirtyid 6y ago
US media companies are free to operate in China, provided they follow Chinese media laws that applies to other domestic platforms. TikTok operates in US under US laws, that's technically fair and reciprocal. If people mean reciprocal in spirit, like joint venture, then TikTok partnering with Oracle and storing data in US server is reciprocal in spirit. You can apply this reciprocal state of exception for all Chinese companies in US, provided JV partners reciprocate in perks (i.e. in China JVs provide massive land and other subsidies). You can even legislate tech transfers for TikTok's algorithm. And for the purpose of trade and commercial entities operating to make a profit that's sufficient. But I surmise the crux of these bad-faith reciprocal arguments is that US should be able to impose its values on foreign markets, and US companies should be able operate in those markets to spread US values like how Chinese platforms operating under US values can shape US opinions. That's valid, but an that's a conversation well past trade fairness which TikTok has already met. But this isn't about trade fairness, this & Clean Network is about Chinese containment and US hegemony. And that's also valid. China's going to do what they do, the question people here needs to ask is should America also do what China does.
- perennate 6y ago
  I think the US passing legislation that requires foreign companies to transfer their technology (or worse, copying brutally repressive CCP laws on media) would be far far far more damaging than surgically banning companies from specific countries under a reciprocal reaction.

richardlblair 6y ago

It's easy to see how this sets precedence. Which is terrifying for the global economy when a protectionist president who swings executive orders around the way he does is in power. Any company who has lots of data (every tech company) that is successful can easily fall victim to this.

kanox 6y ago

It's also disappointing that Biden apparently has no opinion on this issue? You would think that this ban would be a topic in the election but as far as I can tell democrats are fully onboard with the whole "china bad" thing and restricting social media.

abc-xyz 6y ago
Biden appear to be pro-China and has gone on record saying he would end Trump’s China tariffs.
- Finnucane 6y ago
  The tariffs are stupid and have not really had any positive result.
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    I disagree. They’ve done a lot of economic damage to China (besides war then it’s probably the best way we have to combat the CCP), and they’ve forced companies to move their manufacturing out of China. Even high-end tech stuff like the iPhone is starting to get assembled outside of China. In response to the tariffs, China also ended their domestic ownership rules (requiring 50% ownership by Chinese companies) for auto companies and financial institutions.
    - Finnucane 6y ago
      It hasn't helped US manufacturing at all. As was claimed it would.
      - abc-xyz 6y ago
        I think the people that expected this to happen are the same people who thought he’d succeed in building the wall. Although it probably has accelerated the need for automated manufacturing capabilities. I’m sure there are many who believed this, but I’m also sure there are many like me who supported it solely because it would hurt China, knowing full well that the companies would just move their manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, etc.

fluffernutter 6y ago

Fuck the executive.

api 6y ago

This is a national security issue and I doubt it will change under a Democratic administration. We do not want Chinese control of our payments, nor do we want the amount of surveillance that implies being in the hands of any foreign government... let alone an increasingly totalitarian one with camps, slave labor, and many other alarming human rights abuses. Think Russian election meddling was bad in 2016? It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish. China armed with deep social graph data could completely own an election. They are better financed and smarter. There is a ton of naïveté on display here.

sitkack 6y ago
> let alone an increasingly totalitarian one with camps, slave labor, and many other alarming human rights abuses. which government is this? It doesn't narrow it down. > It was amateur hour, basically just memes and bots and on the level of what a determined 4chan mob can accomplish. I think you underestimate the technical acumen of the Russian psyops campaign. Do not measure it by what it looks like measure it by its outcome. Don't underestimate the Russians, ever. > There is a ton of naïveté on display here. True
AndrewBissell 6y ago
I've got news for you about our ICE facilities and prison labor system. Looks like it's time to dismantle the Utah Data Center.

noelsusman 6y ago

I think this ban is kinda dumb, but I also don't understand why algorithms should be borderless and free from regulation? What makes software so special?

zwaps 6y ago

Yes, however, whether the harvesting of content and data is illegal or not, it occurs. The US has no power over Chinese firms by just "making it illegal", as numerous examples have shown in the past - especially if these firms are controlled by the CCP. It's not that American firms don't act equally despicable with our private data, it's simply that the US has the ability to punish them. The CCP is obviously doing the same thing, which is why the majority of comparable products to these services is not allowed in China.

AndrewBissell 6y ago
I envy the naivete required to believe that the U.S. government's chief intent in this case is to maintain the ability to police bad actors who might abuse this data, and not to ensure it has total control to use the data for its own (often nefarious) ends.

vorpalhex 6y ago

There's a reason it's the commerce department doing these things. We do not have strong legal frameworks around data privacy (we should but that's a different battle). We do have controls for foreign entities who recklessly abuse our system and this is that control. If you're going to abuse privacy law, vacuum up PII and behaviorals, and send them to a foreign government database used for blackmail[1] then yes, we're going to freeze your transactions and tell you off. [1] - https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/why-we-should-be-worried-by-chinas-overseas-key-individual-database/ https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/why-we-should-be-worrie...

jariel 6y ago

This is upside down - it ignores the reality of what is happening. WeChat in particular is de-facto a tool of the CCP, it's a giant information gathering and control apparatus that is used to serve the organs of CCP authoritarianism. It's 'disappointing' that people don't seem to understand the nature of these systems. If you dare to 'say the wrong thing' on WeChat - you risk your life and career to arbitrary detainment and punishment. If you speak out on HK protests on WeChat, you may very well never be able to enter the country, and your peers will be flagged. Here's some research [1] WeChat censorship [2] Here's is Amnesty International's view of WeChat Tencent - literally 0/100 score for 'privacy'. [3] The CCP implants state organs into every company in China, a 'private controlling entity' to ensure the board, executives comply with state directives [4] From the Guardian: "One recent survey by the Central Organisation Department, the party’s personnel body, found that 68% of China’s private companies had party bodies by 2016, and 70% of foreign enterprises. Although these figures sound high, they don’t match the targets the party has set for itself. In Xi’s old stamping ground of Zhejiang, for example, officials set a target in August 2018 to have cells inside 95% of private businesses." [5] Tencent/WeChat, possibly TikTok - they are under the control of the CCP and far from being any kind of source of 'freedom' - they are 'enemy number 1' in creating a dystopian nightmare. The actions against Tencent/Bytedance should not be arbitrary edicts from the White House - issues need to be codified in law, or in terms of trade policy, and then applied fairly and objectively, but the outcome is appropriate. [1] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ [2] https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/wechat-surveillance-explained/ [3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-messaging-apps-best-protect-your-privacy/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-me... [4] https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-the-role-of-chinese-communist-party-committees/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/politics-in-the-boardroom-th... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business-xi-jinping-communist-party-state-private-enterprise-huawei https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...

SkyMarshal 6y ago
Good post, good info. You're either being downvoted by CCP bots, or by people who want to continue to believe there's some equivalence b/t a constitutional democracy and an authoritarian dictatorship.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

This whole thing shows the extent to which the powers that be consider social media not as some free-formed independent part of the economy, but rather as an essential tool for surveillance, which is crucial to the intelligence infrastructure of the country. When you view it through that lens it becomes obvious why the U.S. government will not allow a foreign power to gain a major foothold in it with something like TikTok. Each of the major empires (US, China, Russia) will create their own walled ecosystems for harvesting and cataloging data about their populace, and will fiercely resist any attempts by the others to gain a purchase.

koheripbal 6y ago

Justifications aside, it seems like we are moving to a multipolar internet. I wonder how far down the stack that fragmentation will occur.

perennate 6y ago
So far, the primary country that has developed its own fragmented internet is China. The response from India, the US, and others merely represents a reciprocal retaliation to the CCP's arbitrary bans on foreign internet service companies, just as Canada retaliated to US-imposed aluminum tariffs with its own tariffs. Until countries begin imposing these types of bans in a non-reciprocal fashion (i.e., targeting countries other than China), there is no reason to believe that the internet will become further fragmented outside of China. Furthermore, the main goal of reciprocal retaliation is to discourage the original activity, so if anything, reciprocal actions by India and the US will prevent further fragmentation of the internet. Arguing that the US should not engage in these actions is like arguing that Canada should not respond to US-imposed tariffs with its own tariffs on US goods. Failing to reciprocate would lead to more tariffs, not less.

seebetter 6y ago

“Human rights” aka nationalistic terms. Let’s pretend that relativism is flawed. Now make your argument.

dheera 6y ago

"Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S." So basically Apple users are screwed because of their strict control of their OS, but Android users will be fine, because you can just go to http://www.wechat.com/ http://www.wechat.com/ and hit "Direct Download" and bypass the Google Play store entirely. Yay Android!

nickfromseattle 6y ago

>why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? The argument for import restrictions is giving up control to foreign governments. For example, Europe is in a very rough spot because their countries run on software built by US companies, subject to the whims of US law enforcement. The biggest threat being 3 letter agencies. The CIA does a lot of spying on behalf of US corporations to drive US corporate interests. [0] The US army banned Tik Tok from service member phones because of the risk of leaking data on troop movement, sensitive communication on the device outside of Tik Tok, etc [1] [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/army-bans-tiktok-cloud-hopper-email-scam/ https://www.wired.com/story/army-bans-tiktok-cloud-hopper-em...

ordinaryperson 6y ago
> The CIA does a lot of spying on behalf of US corporations to drive US corporate interests. Luckily Europe doesn't do any spying. https://thecorrespondent.com/6257/how-european-spy-technology-falls-into-the-wrong-hands/2168866237604-51234153 https://thecorrespondent.com/6257/how-european-spy-technolog...
- nickfromseattle 6y ago
  This is absolutely true, and I hope my OP didn't infer they didn't. The critical difference is US companies own Europe's communication infrastructure (Windows, Office 365, GSuite, Azure, AWS, Slack, etc), and not the other way around.
  - ordinaryperson 6y ago
    Sure. Problem is, the US government does not own US companies. After the Snowden leaks, for example, Google did a lot of hardening to its servers i.e. ensure all of its internal traffic is encrypted. If you have evidence that Microsoft, Amazon and Google are totally willing to forgo the security and privacy interests of their customers in favor of pleasing the US Government, please, present some evidence for it. I'm eager to read it.

drieddust 6y ago

Nations exist and so does nation boundaries. Why you want to pretend otherwise? Chinese Communist Party puts unfair restrictions so why others should allow CCP to have free reign?

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I can't agree with you as the Chinese government doesn't seem to be willing to recognize the USA's ability to control data on it's own citizens just like in all other countries have the option to do. China is clearly becoming a hostile authoritarian regime that would love to have all the data it can on the leaders of tomorrow. Blackmail data in particular. There is no clear path right now for TicToc to block that data from heading overseas and it doesn't seem to be taking the USA seriously on the matter. No one cares about their algorithm, that is proprietary and welcome to stay there in China. I agree that the USA should be more forthcoming on whether or not they have real evidence on data harvesting on Americans, I would like to see that happen.

malwarebytess 6y ago

> If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been. What can we do to ensure this happens?