4 ms·

We're no longer live in a world where someone who chooses to use the internet can assume the expecataion of privacy. But this is doesn't demonstrate the need to

We're no longer live in a world where someone who chooses to use the internet can assume the expecataion of privacy. But this is doesn't demonstrate the need to ban TikTok. Gathering data users are willing to give you isn't a crime by any definition. Users choose to create an account, supply personal infomation, scroll for hours, and even make videos. These are not security violations, the app has not sniffed packets on your wifi and decrypted private data or any used an exploit to mine data from your phone. Without technical motive for this ban, it seems nothing more than a political gesture. It's important to make a distinction between a cybersecurity threat due to active exploits and attacks, and a privacy threat due to OSINT mining. I don't believe the second case, currently, justifies an outright ban. If the second also justifies a ban, then every single mainstream piece of software, from smart tv os, to social media, to phone apps, to laptop and desktop os, to entire governments, to even the DMV (for selling info) are should be banned. In some of those cases, I'd argue they have already done worse than TikTok, the DMV currently sells personal infromation without your explicit consent to data brokers. The information the DMV sells access to includes, name, address, employment, voluneer organizations, and vehicle records to some of the same companies you metioned, LexisNexis and Experian. [1] An interesting and alarming disclosure to me is WA DMV explicitly states "We provide data services for authorized recipients. For example: ... Research, such as an obesity study." You information can be used in a research study without your explicit consent. People are read open about sharing opinions on what they like publicly. I enjoy Harry Potter TikToks memes, I'm sure I've posted HP in my public Facebook likes back in the day, and I'm sure I've shared some book quotes on my twitter that's associated with my real identity. And now this post. OSINT isn't just a part of the economy, it's also a part of the government. That's why this ban doesn't sit right with me. https://www.dol.wa.gov/privacy/how-we-use-your-info.html https://www.dol.wa.gov/privacy/how-we-use-your-info.html

mindslight 4y ago
The second half of your comment still complains about the WA DMV, despite the first part of your comment trying to whitewash the general problem as "Gathering data users are willing to give you isn't a crime by any definition". This reads to me as cognitive dissonance. Even though users hand over some data "willingly" for some purposes, they do not seem to be happy about this state of affairs, nor have they condoned every purpose it is ultimately abused for. This is demonstrated by the evergreen interest in news articles about how company X is abusing customers' data - if people didn't care, then they wouldn't be popular. You're trying to shoehorn this concern into whether or not it is a CFAA violation, which it is generally not. But privacy is orthogonal to unauthorized access - a healthcare provider can violate HIPAA even though they obtained your data legally. A comprehensive privacy law ala the EU's GDPR is the first legal step for pushing back against the massive abuse of data all of these companies shamelessly engage in. And it is unfortunate that with the brokenness of our political system there would be many loopholes carved out of such a thing (like your DMV example, the longstanding financial surveillance bureaus, etc). But only by starting to draw a line in the sand can we possibly move towards a society with a meaningful concept of privacy, and repudiate the unaccountable totalitarian systems that Surveillance Valley has been building. I agree that this particular ban seems like nothing but simplistic political grandstanding. But once again there is a much simpler universal rule that should already have been in place for state owned devices - a blanket prohibition of every app that isn't necessary for the job.
- knaik94 4y ago
  I think it's reasonable for the government to ban TikTok on their phones. I don't think it's reasonable to make a blanket ban per state or ban its use on College wifi networks with the only justification being potential national security. I am not sure why you believe the kind of security violation is shoehorning in an unnecessary concern. Technology and software should only be banned at a nation level when it is a threat to national security. TikTok is a something people can uninstall at any time and people voluntarily choose to install. If you can't see the difference between someone sharing their interest in Harry Potter and the DMV selling your information, without your knowledge or consent, to predatory companies, then I don't think I can explain explain my perspective properly. I did not give the DMV height and weight (listed on the driver's license), my car accident history or insurance information or employment information to sell, they didn't ask before they did. When I travel to a different country, I did not consent to having my face scan taken by the TSA for facial recognition purposes. It's "optional" but that's not how it was presented when I travelled. I am not sure what I am whitewashing, I make it clear that I expect there is evidence of TikTok exfiltrating data illegally. There is very little chance of the US sharing evidence publicly because that kind of accuastion could start retalitory cyberattacks. If that evidence was public, I would support the ban. But there's nothing public, and unlike with Huawei, there's no conditional evidence either. There's no evidence of TikTok being used to influence public opinion, there's nothing actionable that makes it different than any other social media site. The US Goverment not wanting China to have the data of their citizens isn't a national security threat, it's trying to avoid the consequencees of their intentionally bad policies regarding user privacy. Policies they exploit. I remember that there was an issue with military personnel getting in trouble using fitness and walking tracking apps at secured bases. People started noticing random high density areas in the technically uninhabited places on maps, they turned out to be military bases. In that case the fitness tracking was banned due to national security issues, but obviously it wasn't malicious abuse of user data. It's not data that the fitness tracker obtained indirectly using data brokers, people voluntarily submitted the data. There are two separate situations. People should avoid using TikTok because there is a question about whether China has unrestricted access to mine it. People should avoid social media because any kind of social media allows companies and governments to mine it. The separate issue is that there is unproven fears that TikTok is spying on users in some way for the benefit of the Chinese government. This is unproven. This kind of spying would be a genuine critical national security risk of the highest degree. The first and second situation aren't equivalent threats. I recognize that we have different standard regarding what is severe enough to justify a ban. I hope I was able to demonstrate my perspective about why I think the ban is actually harmful with respect to users, because it lets the government avoid addressing the actual issue. It is a form of censorship, because as of now, it's only politically motivated. The ban wasn't because the government cares about user privacy. If the government really wanted to draw a line in the sand, they would start within the government itself. Edit: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/critics-find-flaws-in-bidens-push-to-hold-big-tech-accountable/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/critics-find-fla... I don't think most people realize how dangerous it would be to attack section 230 as a way to implement Europe style privacy laws. It's literally yet another attack on privacy. It seems like Biden is a fan of the old EARN IT bill. It will never pass in the US, but still makes me nervous.

mindslight 4y ago

The second half of your comment still complains about the WA DMV, despite the first part of your comment trying to whitewash the general problem as "Gathering data users are willing to give you isn't a crime by any definition". This reads to me as cognitive dissonance. Even though users hand over some data "willingly" for some purposes, they do not seem to be happy about this state of affairs, nor have they condoned every purpose it is ultimately abused for. This is demonstrated by the evergreen interest in news articles about how company X is abusing customers' data - if people didn't care, then they wouldn't be popular. You're trying to shoehorn this concern into whether or not it is a CFAA violation, which it is generally not. But privacy is orthogonal to unauthorized access - a healthcare provider can violate HIPAA even though they obtained your data legally. A comprehensive privacy law ala the EU's GDPR is the first legal step for pushing back against the massive abuse of data all of these companies shamelessly engage in. And it is unfortunate that with the brokenness of our political system there would be many loopholes carved out of such a thing (like your DMV example, the longstanding financial surveillance bureaus, etc). But only by starting to draw a line in the sand can we possibly move towards a society with a meaningful concept of privacy, and repudiate the unaccountable totalitarian systems that Surveillance Valley has been building. I agree that this particular ban seems like nothing but simplistic political grandstanding. But once again there is a much simpler universal rule that should already have been in place for state owned devices - a blanket prohibition of every app that isn't necessary for the job.

knaik94 4y ago
I think it's reasonable for the government to ban TikTok on their phones. I don't think it's reasonable to make a blanket ban per state or ban its use on College wifi networks with the only justification being potential national security. I am not sure why you believe the kind of security violation is shoehorning in an unnecessary concern. Technology and software should only be banned at a nation level when it is a threat to national security. TikTok is a something people can uninstall at any time and people voluntarily choose to install. If you can't see the difference between someone sharing their interest in Harry Potter and the DMV selling your information, without your knowledge or consent, to predatory companies, then I don't think I can explain explain my perspective properly. I did not give the DMV height and weight (listed on the driver's license), my car accident history or insurance information or employment information to sell, they didn't ask before they did. When I travel to a different country, I did not consent to having my face scan taken by the TSA for facial recognition purposes. It's "optional" but that's not how it was presented when I travelled. I am not sure what I am whitewashing, I make it clear that I expect there is evidence of TikTok exfiltrating data illegally. There is very little chance of the US sharing evidence publicly because that kind of accuastion could start retalitory cyberattacks. If that evidence was public, I would support the ban. But there's nothing public, and unlike with Huawei, there's no conditional evidence either. There's no evidence of TikTok being used to influence public opinion, there's nothing actionable that makes it different than any other social media site. The US Goverment not wanting China to have the data of their citizens isn't a national security threat, it's trying to avoid the consequencees of their intentionally bad policies regarding user privacy. Policies they exploit. I remember that there was an issue with military personnel getting in trouble using fitness and walking tracking apps at secured bases. People started noticing random high density areas in the technically uninhabited places on maps, they turned out to be military bases. In that case the fitness tracking was banned due to national security issues, but obviously it wasn't malicious abuse of user data. It's not data that the fitness tracker obtained indirectly using data brokers, people voluntarily submitted the data. There are two separate situations. People should avoid using TikTok because there is a question about whether China has unrestricted access to mine it. People should avoid social media because any kind of social media allows companies and governments to mine it. The separate issue is that there is unproven fears that TikTok is spying on users in some way for the benefit of the Chinese government. This is unproven. This kind of spying would be a genuine critical national security risk of the highest degree. The first and second situation aren't equivalent threats. I recognize that we have different standard regarding what is severe enough to justify a ban. I hope I was able to demonstrate my perspective about why I think the ban is actually harmful with respect to users, because it lets the government avoid addressing the actual issue. It is a form of censorship, because as of now, it's only politically motivated. The ban wasn't because the government cares about user privacy. If the government really wanted to draw a line in the sand, they would start within the government itself. Edit: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/critics-find-flaws-in-bidens-push-to-hold-big-tech-accountable/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/critics-find-fla... I don't think most people realize how dangerous it would be to attack section 230 as a way to implement Europe style privacy laws. It's literally yet another attack on privacy. It seems like Biden is a fan of the old EARN IT bill. It will never pass in the US, but still makes me nervous.