5 ms·

We just don't care. We know the all the American TLAs are on our phones, so what's a few more Chinese ones? It's a problem for Washington war wonks to freak out

We just don't care. We know the all the American TLAs are on our phones, so what's a few more Chinese ones? It's a problem for Washington war wonks to freak out about, not teens in Omaha.

dyauspitr 2y ago
Oh we care. I care way, way less about an American company with my data over the CCP.
- hnuser123456 2y ago
  I've heard it put that, if you're not a government official, having your own government spy on you could be more consequential than a foreign one.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    Lots of people think this way and, to be honest, it speaks more to the inability of the thinker to consider the realities of the US's current relationship with China. A good thought experiment is whether you think the people of Crimea or Donetsk would prefer having the Ukrainian government spy on them instead of the Russian government and whether this preference changed in 2014 or 2022. It's easy to have a gut reaction that your own government has a greater impact on your life than a foreign one, but that does not reflect the reality that 1) the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens; 2) the Chinese government has; and 3) the US and China are going to war one day, and China might win.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > 1) the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens; 2) the Chinese government has And before someone hops in with Kent State, Tuskegee trials, et al., let's set the comparison bar at order-of x00,000 to x0,000,000 citizens killed by the government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_to...
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens To the extent this is maybe remotely arguably defensible, it is only so because the US has historically defined internal subjects who it wished to abuse most intently as non-citizens (or even legal non-persons), including chattel slavery of much of the Black population until the Civil War, and the largely genocidal American Indian wars up through 1924. But even in those cases you still have to ignore a lot of abuse in the period after nominal citizenship was granted (for Black Americans, especially, but very much not exclusively, in the first century after abolition of slavery).
      - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        That your examples are a century old proves the point about the US govt. being benign.
    - sapphicsnail 2y ago
      If you're part of one of the subgroups that the American government has historically mistreated then it absolutely makes sense to be more afraid of your own government.
    - ruined 2y ago
      >A good thought experiment is whether you think the people of Crimea or Donetsk would prefer having the Ukrainian government spy on them instead of the Russian government and whether this preference changed in 2014 or 2022. we're not in that situation, but i would expect the people of crimea and donetsk would prefer that nobody surveilled them. but in a practical sense, surveilliance of people in donetsk and crimea by china would be less immediately threatening to their life, because china is not conducting military action in those places. >1) the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens i don't understand how anyone can seriously make this claim, and i really don't understand why potential danger isn't a consideration. potential danger is simply danger. privacy rights are established in recognition that a threat is itself harmful. and abuse is not unreal. america has had a larger incarcerated population than any other country for my entire lifetime. both absolute size and per capita. in america, political movements are consistently dismantled by counterintelligence. political action is met with violence and arrest. perhaps few people are outright murdered, but it's not necessary to murder the powerless. outside of america proper, american power is much more lethal. every concern and contradiction that threatens the present situation - environment, infrastructure, housing, healthcare, labor, war - is maintained by suppression of political organizing, enabled by surveillance. the administration incoming next week has promised a massive project of deportation. it has promised retaliation against journalists. it is apparently motivated to criminalize the existence of transgender people. none of these threats are reduced by american surveillance of american people. >2) the Chinese government has [abused its power] sure. but this is a problem primarily for chinese people, and americans are not subjects of chinese power. american surveillance of american people does not reduce any threat of chinese power. why isn't the american legislature addressing the problems of american people subject to american power? >3) the US and China are going to war one day. i don't expect this. there's too much to lose on both sides. it would be a disaster and a tragedy. true or not, it's certain that american citizens would benefit, and america itself would improve, if arbitrary surveillance on the present scale was impossible.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  Why?
noman-land 2y ago
Those teens in Omaha will eventually become voting adults in Omaha and then will eventually come into positions of leadership in both the public and private sector. I can guarantee that 0% would appreciate being blackmailed or unknowingly used as pawns in spycraft. Teens in Omaha may not understand the full scope of what it means.
- square_usual 2y ago
  Can you definitively point to something TikTok collects that can be used for blackmail that isn't collected by any other social media app?
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Why is it okay that it's collected by any? And furthermore, why is it okay that it's collected AND owned by a company based in a country not subject to the rule of law? "Facebook does it too" isn't a reason not to be worried about TikTok.
    - filoleg 2y ago
      > And furthermore, why is it okay that it's collected AND owned by a company based in a country not subject to the rule of law? Because I, as an adult, decided that I am ok with sharing my personal data within their app in exchange for getting to use the app. As long as I am not sharing personal data of other people (who haven’t consented to it like I did) or some government/work/etc info that I have no right to share, I am not sure how this is anyone else’s business. P.S. I would somewhat get your argument if it wasn’t TikTok but something that could theoretically affect the country’s infrastructure or safety (e.g., tax preparation software or a money-managing app or an MFA app for secure logins). But all personal data on me that TikTok has is purely my own, has nothing critical at all (all it knows is what i watch and do within the app), and has zero effect on anyone or anything else.
      - gpm 2y ago
        > As long as I am not sharing personal data of other people (who haven’t consented to it like I did) The ruling mentions that users are in fact doing this. > (Draft National Security Agreement noting that TikTok collects [...] and device and network data (including device contacts and calendars)). If, for example, a user allows TikTok access to the user’s phone contact list to connect with others on the platform, TikTok can access “any data stored in the user’s contact list,” including names, contact information, contact photos, job titles, and notes. 2 id., at 659. I also don't believe that most adults using this app really know how much data TikTok collects. It isn't just "what i watch and do within the app". A fuller quote from the above that doesn't just focus on data involving other people is > The platform collects extensive personal information from and about its users. See H. R. Rep., at 3 (Public reporting has suggested that TikTok’s “data collection practices extend to age, phone number, precise location, internet address, device used, phone contacts, social network connections, the content of private messages sent through the application, and videos watched.”); 1 App. 241 (Draft National Security Agreement noting that TikTok collects user data, user content, behavioral data (including “keystroke patterns and rhythms”), and device and network data (including device contacts and calenders)). I also don't particularly believe that the US has to allow espionage just because the government spying got the individuals being spied on to agree to it. And why have we forgotten about kids? The law in question doesn't forbid you, or any other adult, or even any child for that matter, from knowingly installing the app. It forbids companies from assisting in wide scale espionage. You can still install the app if you want, the US companies just can't help operate the espionage app.
fuzzylightbulb 2y ago
This is like saying that you don't care about free speech because you don't have anything to say right now. It's no where close to being a justification.

We just don't care. We know the all the American TLAs are on our phones, so what's a few more Chinese ones? It's a problem for Washington war wonks to freak out about, not teens in Omaha.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Oh we care. I care way, way less about an American company with my data over the CCP.

hnuser123456 2y ago
I've heard it put that, if you're not a government official, having your own government spy on you could be more consequential than a foreign one.
- abduhl 2y ago
  Lots of people think this way and, to be honest, it speaks more to the inability of the thinker to consider the realities of the US's current relationship with China. A good thought experiment is whether you think the people of Crimea or Donetsk would prefer having the Ukrainian government spy on them instead of the Russian government and whether this preference changed in 2014 or 2022. It's easy to have a gut reaction that your own government has a greater impact on your life than a foreign one, but that does not reflect the reality that 1) the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens; 2) the Chinese government has; and 3) the US and China are going to war one day, and China might win.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > 1) the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens; 2) the Chinese government has And before someone hops in with Kent State, Tuskegee trials, et al., let's set the comparison bar at order-of x00,000 to x0,000,000 citizens killed by the government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_to...
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens To the extent this is maybe remotely arguably defensible, it is only so because the US has historically defined internal subjects who it wished to abuse most intently as non-citizens (or even legal non-persons), including chattel slavery of much of the Black population until the Civil War, and the largely genocidal American Indian wars up through 1924. But even in those cases you still have to ignore a lot of abuse in the period after nominal citizenship was granted (for Black Americans, especially, but very much not exclusively, in the first century after abolition of slavery).
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      That your examples are a century old proves the point about the US govt. being benign.
  - sapphicsnail 2y ago
    If you're part of one of the subgroups that the American government has historically mistreated then it absolutely makes sense to be more afraid of your own government.
  - ruined 2y ago
    >A good thought experiment is whether you think the people of Crimea or Donetsk would prefer having the Ukrainian government spy on them instead of the Russian government and whether this preference changed in 2014 or 2022. we're not in that situation, but i would expect the people of crimea and donetsk would prefer that nobody surveilled them. but in a practical sense, surveilliance of people in donetsk and crimea by china would be less immediately threatening to their life, because china is not conducting military action in those places. >1) the US government is generally benign in that it historically has not abused its power over citizens i don't understand how anyone can seriously make this claim, and i really don't understand why potential danger isn't a consideration. potential danger is simply danger. privacy rights are established in recognition that a threat is itself harmful. and abuse is not unreal. america has had a larger incarcerated population than any other country for my entire lifetime. both absolute size and per capita. in america, political movements are consistently dismantled by counterintelligence. political action is met with violence and arrest. perhaps few people are outright murdered, but it's not necessary to murder the powerless. outside of america proper, american power is much more lethal. every concern and contradiction that threatens the present situation - environment, infrastructure, housing, healthcare, labor, war - is maintained by suppression of political organizing, enabled by surveillance. the administration incoming next week has promised a massive project of deportation. it has promised retaliation against journalists. it is apparently motivated to criminalize the existence of transgender people. none of these threats are reduced by american surveillance of american people. >2) the Chinese government has [abused its power] sure. but this is a problem primarily for chinese people, and americans are not subjects of chinese power. american surveillance of american people does not reduce any threat of chinese power. why isn't the american legislature addressing the problems of american people subject to american power? >3) the US and China are going to war one day. i don't expect this. there's too much to lose on both sides. it would be a disaster and a tragedy. true or not, it's certain that american citizens would benefit, and america itself would improve, if arbitrary surveillance on the present scale was impossible.
School-Cotton 2y ago
Why?

noman-land 2y ago

Those teens in Omaha will eventually become voting adults in Omaha and then will eventually come into positions of leadership in both the public and private sector. I can guarantee that 0% would appreciate being blackmailed or unknowingly used as pawns in spycraft. Teens in Omaha may not understand the full scope of what it means.

square_usual 2y ago
Can you definitively point to something TikTok collects that can be used for blackmail that isn't collected by any other social media app?
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Why is it okay that it's collected by any? And furthermore, why is it okay that it's collected AND owned by a company based in a country not subject to the rule of law? "Facebook does it too" isn't a reason not to be worried about TikTok.
  - filoleg 2y ago
    > And furthermore, why is it okay that it's collected AND owned by a company based in a country not subject to the rule of law? Because I, as an adult, decided that I am ok with sharing my personal data within their app in exchange for getting to use the app. As long as I am not sharing personal data of other people (who haven’t consented to it like I did) or some government/work/etc info that I have no right to share, I am not sure how this is anyone else’s business. P.S. I would somewhat get your argument if it wasn’t TikTok but something that could theoretically affect the country’s infrastructure or safety (e.g., tax preparation software or a money-managing app or an MFA app for secure logins). But all personal data on me that TikTok has is purely my own, has nothing critical at all (all it knows is what i watch and do within the app), and has zero effect on anyone or anything else.
    - gpm 2y ago
      > As long as I am not sharing personal data of other people (who haven’t consented to it like I did) The ruling mentions that users are in fact doing this. > (Draft National Security Agreement noting that TikTok collects [...] and device and network data (including device contacts and calendars)). If, for example, a user allows TikTok access to the user’s phone contact list to connect with others on the platform, TikTok can access “any data stored in the user’s contact list,” including names, contact information, contact photos, job titles, and notes. 2 id., at 659. I also don't believe that most adults using this app really know how much data TikTok collects. It isn't just "what i watch and do within the app". A fuller quote from the above that doesn't just focus on data involving other people is > The platform collects extensive personal information from and about its users. See H. R. Rep., at 3 (Public reporting has suggested that TikTok’s “data collection practices extend to age, phone number, precise location, internet address, device used, phone contacts, social network connections, the content of private messages sent through the application, and videos watched.”); 1 App. 241 (Draft National Security Agreement noting that TikTok collects user data, user content, behavioral data (including “keystroke patterns and rhythms”), and device and network data (including device contacts and calenders)). I also don't particularly believe that the US has to allow espionage just because the government spying got the individuals being spied on to agree to it. And why have we forgotten about kids? The law in question doesn't forbid you, or any other adult, or even any child for that matter, from knowingly installing the app. It forbids companies from assisting in wide scale espionage. You can still install the app if you want, the US companies just can't help operate the espionage app.

fuzzylightbulb 2y ago

This is like saying that you don't care about free speech because you don't have anything to say right now. It's no where close to being a justification.