5 ms·

How do you implement this ban. Was about side loading apps. Will they firewall the apps comms?

by tus88 6y ago

paxys 6y ago
Nice of you to assume that the White House has thought any of this through.
cbhl 6y ago
By telling the app store owners that they must stop distributing it. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/09/commerce-department-prohibits-wechat-and-tiktok-transactions-protect https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/09/commerc...
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  Do they have power to ask for arbitrary removal from app store?
  - Reelin 6y ago
    Yes. Why would a government (any government) not have the ability to make more or less arbitrary mandates in the interest of national security? It's arguably one of the primary purposes of having a government in the first place. That said, I'm sure there are complex legal criteria in the US that could lead to a lengthy court case.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      There should've been a provision in the constitution against using "national security" as a justification for anything, or any verbiage along those lines. As Picard put it: "The age-old cry of the oppressor." It's such a beautiful phrase. "National security." Who wouldn't want to help with national security? Are you getting in the way of our nation's security? (A bit unsettled we now live in an era of "It's illegal to download <app to watch cat videos>," even if the national security concerns were true.)
      - Reelin 6y ago
        On the contrary, I highly value civil liberties but am perfectly happy with the government acting aggressively to protect national security. It's literally in my best interests! Consider that (at an extreme) using the military to repel an armed invasion is most definitely a matter of national security. The authoritarian and the libertarian can both claim "national security" and mean very different things in practice. Ensuring a robust judicial process and having precise definitions for such terminology are both serious issues here. The police are literally supposed to protect the children (and the adults!), but "protecting the children" is hardly desirable. Edit: > (A bit unsettled we now live in an era of "It's illegal to download <app to watch cat videos>," even if the national security concerns were true.) I'm certainly no fan of the current administration, but how is a centralized and widely used social media app not a potential national security threat? For any country, it seems highly concerning to me for either the employees or infrastructure for such an app to be located in any jurisdiction that isn't a close ally. As an example, consider the destabilizing influence that Google could potentially exert by intentionally skewing search results for a specific topic in a calculated and subtle manner. Honestly I'm somewhat surprised that the EU hasn't objected to Facebook or Twitter on these grounds. I suppose they mostly trust us not to meddle in their elections (and us them for that matter).
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Sure. A simple "You are hereby required to cease distribution of X by <deadline>. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $2,000 per day until compliance." It's basically what they did to -- uhh, what was it called? The encrypted email service Snowden used when he was smuggling NSA docs. $2k per day, increasing over time, adds up fast. Once you're staring at an executive order, questions of whether they really have the power fall to lawyers. In the meantime, corporations comply.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- thysultan 6y ago
  ...and telling the banks they cannot transact with the parent company.
draw_down 6y ago
CDNs can’t serve content. The app is not too exciting without content.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
This is just a stepping stone. Next comes completely cutting off their servers (sometime in november I believe) from accessing the USA. Sure a few will get around it with VPNs but the young people are easily distracted and will move over to Reels or something else that serves the same purpose.

How do you implement this ban. Was about side loading apps. Will they firewall the apps comms?

by tus88 6y ago

How do you implement this ban. Was about side loading apps. Will they firewall the apps comms?

paxys 6y ago

Nice of you to assume that the White House has thought any of this through.

cbhl 6y ago

By telling the app store owners that they must stop distributing it. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/09/commerce-department-prohibits-wechat-and-tiktok-transactions-protect https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/09/commerc...

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
Do they have power to ask for arbitrary removal from app store?
- Reelin 6y ago
  Yes. Why would a government (any government) not have the ability to make more or less arbitrary mandates in the interest of national security? It's arguably one of the primary purposes of having a government in the first place. That said, I'm sure there are complex legal criteria in the US that could lead to a lengthy court case.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    There should've been a provision in the constitution against using "national security" as a justification for anything, or any verbiage along those lines. As Picard put it: "The age-old cry of the oppressor." It's such a beautiful phrase. "National security." Who wouldn't want to help with national security? Are you getting in the way of our nation's security? (A bit unsettled we now live in an era of "It's illegal to download <app to watch cat videos>," even if the national security concerns were true.)
    - Reelin 6y ago
      On the contrary, I highly value civil liberties but am perfectly happy with the government acting aggressively to protect national security. It's literally in my best interests! Consider that (at an extreme) using the military to repel an armed invasion is most definitely a matter of national security. The authoritarian and the libertarian can both claim "national security" and mean very different things in practice. Ensuring a robust judicial process and having precise definitions for such terminology are both serious issues here. The police are literally supposed to protect the children (and the adults!), but "protecting the children" is hardly desirable. Edit: > (A bit unsettled we now live in an era of "It's illegal to download <app to watch cat videos>," even if the national security concerns were true.) I'm certainly no fan of the current administration, but how is a centralized and widely used social media app not a potential national security threat? For any country, it seems highly concerning to me for either the employees or infrastructure for such an app to be located in any jurisdiction that isn't a close ally. As an example, consider the destabilizing influence that Google could potentially exert by intentionally skewing search results for a specific topic in a calculated and subtle manner. Honestly I'm somewhat surprised that the EU hasn't objected to Facebook or Twitter on these grounds. I suppose they mostly trust us not to meddle in their elections (and us them for that matter).
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Sure. A simple "You are hereby required to cease distribution of X by <deadline>. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $2,000 per day until compliance." It's basically what they did to -- uhh, what was it called? The encrypted email service Snowden used when he was smuggling NSA docs. $2k per day, increasing over time, adds up fast. Once you're staring at an executive order, questions of whether they really have the power fall to lawyers. In the meantime, corporations comply.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
thysultan 6y ago
...and telling the banks they cannot transact with the parent company.

draw_down 6y ago

CDNs can’t serve content. The app is not too exciting without content.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

This is just a stepping stone. Next comes completely cutting off their servers (sometime in november I believe) from accessing the USA. Sure a few will get around it with VPNs but the young people are easily distracted and will move over to Reels or something else that serves the same purpose.