4 ms·

Yes.

by fortuna86 5y ago

Yes.

pphysch 5y ago
Well, you've been misled. https://transparencyreport.google.com https://transparencyreport.google.com
- pdabbadabba 5y ago
  If they're equally influenced by their national governments, perhaps you can also direct us to ByteDance's own transparency report, so we can compare?
  - pphysch 5y ago
    That would be moving the goalposts. We're concerned whether companies are de facto influenced by governments, not whether those companies produce PR material about said influences.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      "You are moving goalposts" proceeds to move goalposts ByteDance doesn't issue such reports because everyone knows they cannot refuse a request by their government. Any report that says otherwise would be, as you say, "PR material".
      - trasz 5y ago
        Same way US-based companies can’t refuse gag orders and other kangaroo “secret courts”.
        fortuna86 5y ago
        US companies can and often do refuse federal law enforcement requests, then they tell the world about it. Two things not done, ever, in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
        trasz 5y ago
        Law enforcement - sure. But not American security agencies, thanks to gag orders and secret "security courts".
        fortuna86 5y ago
        Again, your comparison falls apart right away. 1. There is a court in the US (called FISA), with procedure and some transparency. Neither exists in China. 2. Requests have been denied, just not that many. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fisa-court-has-only-denied-nsa-request-once-past-5-years-180951313/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fisa-court-has-onl...) But that proves they have the ability to say no, which is what we are discussing. 3. All of the above can be improved, but shifting the argument to "what's bad about the US system" away from "what China is actually doing" is drifting into deflection.
    - samtheprogram 5y ago
      Moving goal posts would be more like claiming that, because we have evidence Google cooperates with the US Government for some investigations, the US Government has similar influence and control over Google as China does over ByteDance, without any scrutiny or review of the severity of China's influence on ByteDance. Also, to the very point you bring up... recipients of an NSL can file a legal challenge to an NSL which would trigger a judge to have to review the request. NSL's also do not allow the government to request all sorts of data, but mostly direct PII and service metadata. NSLs are problematic but I seriously doubt any comparative limits apply to Chinese agencies' requests for data from ByteDance.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Bottom line: virtually all large (tech) companies are influenced by governments. They will surveil you on behalf of your government. Period. Any attempts to muddy the waters for ideological point-scoring are beside the point. If you want to dig deeper, please bring evidence instead of speculation.
        samtheprogram 5y ago
        In the original comment you responded to, the CCP put a party member in the ByteDance board of directors. The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-... National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of... It’s not ideological; one clearly exerts more control than the other, by an order of magnitude. To say the surveillance, censorship, or control on businesses are similar because Google has complied with some government requests (the only evidence _you_ have provided) is naive at best, or disingenuous at worst. Of course the US performs intelligence gathering on its citizens or foreigners for national security. The difference is the scope, oversight, and recourse businesses in the US have.

Yes.

pphysch 5y ago

Well, you've been misled. https://transparencyreport.google.com https://transparencyreport.google.com

pdabbadabba 5y ago
If they're equally influenced by their national governments, perhaps you can also direct us to ByteDance's own transparency report, so we can compare?
- pphysch 5y ago
  That would be moving the goalposts. We're concerned whether companies are de facto influenced by governments, not whether those companies produce PR material about said influences.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    "You are moving goalposts" proceeds to move goalposts ByteDance doesn't issue such reports because everyone knows they cannot refuse a request by their government. Any report that says otherwise would be, as you say, "PR material".
    - trasz 5y ago
      Same way US-based companies can’t refuse gag orders and other kangaroo “secret courts”.
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        US companies can and often do refuse federal law enforcement requests, then they tell the world about it. Two things not done, ever, in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
        trasz 5y ago
        Law enforcement - sure. But not American security agencies, thanks to gag orders and secret "security courts".
        fortuna86 5y ago
        Again, your comparison falls apart right away. 1. There is a court in the US (called FISA), with procedure and some transparency. Neither exists in China. 2. Requests have been denied, just not that many. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fisa-court-has-only-denied-nsa-request-once-past-5-years-180951313/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fisa-court-has-onl...) But that proves they have the ability to say no, which is what we are discussing. 3. All of the above can be improved, but shifting the argument to "what's bad about the US system" away from "what China is actually doing" is drifting into deflection.
  - samtheprogram 5y ago
    Moving goal posts would be more like claiming that, because we have evidence Google cooperates with the US Government for some investigations, the US Government has similar influence and control over Google as China does over ByteDance, without any scrutiny or review of the severity of China's influence on ByteDance. Also, to the very point you bring up... recipients of an NSL can file a legal challenge to an NSL which would trigger a judge to have to review the request. NSL's also do not allow the government to request all sorts of data, but mostly direct PII and service metadata. NSLs are problematic but I seriously doubt any comparative limits apply to Chinese agencies' requests for data from ByteDance.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Bottom line: virtually all large (tech) companies are influenced by governments. They will surveil you on behalf of your government. Period. Any attempts to muddy the waters for ideological point-scoring are beside the point. If you want to dig deeper, please bring evidence instead of speculation.
      - samtheprogram 5y ago
        In the original comment you responded to, the CCP put a party member in the ByteDance board of directors. The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-... National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of... It’s not ideological; one clearly exerts more control than the other, by an order of magnitude. To say the surveillance, censorship, or control on businesses are similar because Google has complied with some government requests (the only evidence _you_ have provided) is naive at best, or disingenuous at worst. Of course the US performs intelligence gathering on its citizens or foreigners for national security. The difference is the scope, oversight, and recourse businesses in the US have.