5 ms·

Honestly, I personally think that this is a pretty impressive strategic move on Trump's part. I mean considering the strong precedence it sets for future Chines

Honestly, I personally think that this is a pretty impressive strategic move on Trump's part. I mean considering the strong precedence it sets for future Chinese web app developers who intend to market their products internationally. I also think it's important to note that this is us just leveling the playing field in the sense that when we try to market our products there, we have to essentially do the same thing and build a special version just for them that the CCP can monitor and censor at will. With Oracle being in charge of all the backend operations in the US and being a 10% shareholder I can feel confident that they will ensure that the CCP won't have the ability to just pick up a phone and gain access to all of our WeChat information. But with all that being said, I still have a problem with the idea of any Government having the ability to access our private conversations willy, nilly and without any real oversight over the NSA to ensure their investigations are legit and not spying for profit. That's why we need to start demanding that end to end encryption becomes an option we can at least pay for the option to use on all of the major social apps we use like FB, Twitter, etc. Idk, at first I thought Trump was probably overstepping his "conservative" position by trying to step in and regulate the free market in a way where he is now "picking winners and losers", rather than letting the consumers being the ones who get to make this decision (which is something I passionately believe Government should never empower itself to do). But then after looking into the situation a little deeper, I saw that they actually have two seperate versions of TikTok. One called Douyin which is specifically for Chinese users and then TikTok which is for everybody else. After realizing that they were already operating from a walled off garden that keeps their people seperated from us and vice versa, I started to see very little point in having both apps operate from China.

ineedasername 6y ago
I don't think it's a great strategic move. It is the US government saying people can't use a tool that facilitates expression of our 1st amendment rights because of how the tool's owner uses & shares data. Objections to how data is used can be solved by law, with needing to do it by fiat of the Executive Branch. If we don't like how data is going to be used, make laws the dictate the desired restrictions. Then use the rule of law, not the rule of man. Formal legal processes, not vague appeals to national security, would guide any determination on breaches of those laws & appropriate escalating penalties. It would also have the benefit of not escalating a user data issue into a major geo-political incident.
- tatrajim 6y ago
  Chinese-owned companies have no right to withhold data from the state. China National Intelligence Law Article 7: Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law, and keep the secrets of the national intelligence work known to the public. The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work https://cs.brown.edu/courses/csci1800/sources/2017_PRC_NationalIntelligenceLaw.pdf https://cs.brown.edu/courses/csci1800/sources/2017_PRC_Natio...
  - xvector 6y ago
    I’m amazed you could say this without mentioning that US companies, too, have no right to withhold data from the state. We have irrefutable gag orders which force compliance with the NSA [1]. FISA warrants are a joke, a rubber stamp at best. Only every 12 in about 33,000 are denied [2]. [1]: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#FISA_warrants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell...
    - mortdeus 6y ago
      I did mention it by saying I don't believe any government should be able to access user data without oversight. However with that being said, I'm not totally against the idea of the NSA having the power to conduct surveillance to the degree at which it does. It's one of those things where I am not happy about it, but then again I'm not so pissed off that im going to lead the charge that somebody deserves to be thrown overboard because of it.
    - tatrajim 6y ago
      Two crucial differences: 1) Chinese law can be used to coerce indivudusls (including presumably tech company execs) to spy for the state. That is illegal under US law. And uf you're a Chinese student abroad, good luck saying no to the Public Security tity Office when asked to spy on other students. 2) US law, however evilly applied, requires a modicum of specificity and a fig leaf of justification. China law has no such need and can appropriate at scale to its bureaucratic desire (e.g, all IP addresses in Washington, D.C.)

ineedasername 6y ago

I don't think it's a great strategic move. It is the US government saying people can't use a tool that facilitates expression of our 1st amendment rights because of how the tool's owner uses & shares data. Objections to how data is used can be solved by law, with needing to do it by fiat of the Executive Branch. If we don't like how data is going to be used, make laws the dictate the desired restrictions. Then use the rule of law, not the rule of man. Formal legal processes, not vague appeals to national security, would guide any determination on breaches of those laws & appropriate escalating penalties. It would also have the benefit of not escalating a user data issue into a major geo-political incident.

tatrajim 6y ago
Chinese-owned companies have no right to withhold data from the state. China National Intelligence Law Article 7: Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work in accordance with the law, and keep the secrets of the national intelligence work known to the public. The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work https://cs.brown.edu/courses/csci1800/sources/2017_PRC_NationalIntelligenceLaw.pdf https://cs.brown.edu/courses/csci1800/sources/2017_PRC_Natio...
- xvector 6y ago
  I’m amazed you could say this without mentioning that US companies, too, have no right to withhold data from the state. We have irrefutable gag orders which force compliance with the NSA [1]. FISA warrants are a joke, a rubber stamp at best. Only every 12 in about 33,000 are denied [2]. [1]: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#FISA_warrants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell...
  - mortdeus 6y ago
    I did mention it by saying I don't believe any government should be able to access user data without oversight. However with that being said, I'm not totally against the idea of the NSA having the power to conduct surveillance to the degree at which it does. It's one of those things where I am not happy about it, but then again I'm not so pissed off that im going to lead the charge that somebody deserves to be thrown overboard because of it.
  - tatrajim 6y ago
    Two crucial differences: 1) Chinese law can be used to coerce indivudusls (including presumably tech company execs) to spy for the state. That is illegal under US law. And uf you're a Chinese student abroad, good luck saying no to the Public Security tity Office when asked to spy on other students. 2) US law, however evilly applied, requires a modicum of specificity and a fig leaf of justification. China law has no such need and can appropriate at scale to its bureaucratic desire (e.g, all IP addresses in Washington, D.C.)