• Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      33 minutes ago

      That’s like saying YouTube or Facebook I forget which one, got people to eat tide pods. Information spreads on all platforms whether good or bad.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        52 minutes ago

        That’s Hyundai/Kia’s fault though. For whatever reason, they cheaped out and didn’t include an immobilizer in 2011-2022 models (meaning the cars don’t actually verify that there’s a key in it, so you can just remove the key hole and turn the ignition with a screwdriver or USB cable or whatever to start it).

        Before TikTok, this would have just spread on different platforms…

        I’m not defending TikTok though.

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    US tech companies too, you fucking cowards.

    Facebook paid kids to install a VPN client on their smartphones so they could intercept AND DECRYPT traffic between competing services (like Snapchat, Amazon, Youtube)

    facebook and any other company they acquire (or however they try to rebrand) are not only untrustworthy but active adversaries against common decency and basic privacy

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The concern isn’t the input, it’s the potential output. Temu doesn’t have the potential to be used for a large micro-targeted political messaging campaign.

      This is arguably more akin to how the US handles TV and radio. There are national security restrictions on foreign ownership.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They care about companies they have less control over and a foreign adversary has more control over invading privacy, for reasons unrelated to seeing privacy as a good in itself.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Is tiktok saying that all Chinese apps that steal our data are also stealing our data because they were designed to steal our data?!

    I am SHOCKED.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          36 minutes ago

          You’re clearly arguing that tiktok is arguing in court that all Chinese apps steal your data.

          This is patently false to anyone who has read the article. But, of course, it’s much easier to find something to be outraged over when you don’t really know what’s going on.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Lol, what domestic social media apps are the US government trying to ban?

        What’s that? None of them? Ah okay.

        The concern is international espionage, there are really only 2 big players in that space. One of them is the US, can you guess the other?

  • aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s time to start taxing the acquisition, retention, and selling/trading of personal data.

    Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

    • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Better solution.

      Data are owned by the generator. Only they can sell it etc…

      This also solves the privacy problem of law enforcement agencies applying warrants to phone companies etc. for access to your data, which has been an end-run around 4th Amendment rights for decades.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      22 hours ago

      GDPR is a start, but we need to actually ban it, not just annoy people until they click Accept at the 20th popup of that tantalising offer to share your details with 1473 trusted data partners.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        You can just click deny instead. The law says the site must make it easy to do so.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 minutes ago

          There’s a bunch of newspapers already with the option between pay for privacy plus or accept tracking.

          Fortunately there’s a third option which is leave the site and never come back.

          Plus most of the sites will ask you again after a period of time. Until you say yes. After that they can strangely remember your choice.

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      Google and Microsoft would be scrambling to pay off every single person associated with that before it ever hit the first courtroom floor.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      ohhh data collection taxation, I like it. You would think it would be a no-brainer but look at marijuana taxation and the continued resistance to rake in all that public funding. Would make most of the controversy around AI disappear if they tax it’s collection.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      49 minutes ago

      Didi (Chinese Uber) is very popular in Australia too.

    • Jin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think it should depend on the software and what’s being collected & shared, also where it’s hosted.

      While Lenovo has have some securities risk & concerns in the past. You can circumvented a lot by installing a fresh copy of windows or Linux. They don’t really havest data or track you like TikTok does. There is no algorithm, no influence on politics or feeding propaganda.

      I think TikTok would be okay, if Android had a better sandbox environment (like GrapheneOS), but google also wants your data…

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”

    Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.

    If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    You can’t spy on our citizens, that’s our (and our corporations’) job!

    Signed, the US Government

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

      I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.

        Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

        American trade with China only ever increases year-to-year, despite all the noise about a Trade War. Chinese based drop-shipping schemes only ever eat into our domestic market share, because American incomes are falling into line with the global average and that’s the kind of trade good international middle class workers can afford. And all this shit is getting blended together - Indian and Chinese businesses outsource to Indochina and Malaysia and Indonesia where labor is cheaper. Everything gets routed and flagged through Singapore anyway, so the real origin of a good is obscured by the time it lands on your doorstep. And nobody in the business of making money wants to pay a politician to do anything about this in practice.

        Nobody is getting fined, much less into-the-dirt.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.

          That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.

  • Ilandar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m surprised so many people think this is a good argument. TikTok is a social media platform. Temu is an online marketplace. The potential to cause disruption within US society is completely different.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Legally it is a very good argument. A law targeting a single company in name or effect is literally unconstitutional. It’s called a “Bill of Attainder”.

      The counter argument is indicting Facebook because they never stopped selling information directly to the CCP.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Cool, let’s ban Temu then. Nothing of value will be lost.

        In all honesty though, I disagree with banning software, and that includes TikTok. I think it’s a terrible platform and I refuse to use it, but I think we need to solve the underlying problem another way, otherwise we’re just picking and choosing what speech is allowed in this country. The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone.

        That said, if we’re going to ban one, let’s ban them all. These apps haven’t provided any tangible value IMO and they’ve arguably caused a fair amount of harm, so I’m not going to die on a hill defending them.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          I said Facebook because we know they’re doing it and you’d still have to actually prove that case.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn’t be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).

            • Maeve@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              How about making data collection other than necessary to operate a website illegal, then making the sale of that data illegal, and absolutely require a warrant to collect it, including from FISA court?

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I disagree, especially because “other than necessary” is a pretty squishy concept (i.e. selling tailored ads could be considered “necessary to operate a website”). Instead of that, I think selling or providing any form of data collected without the customer’s explicit consent (and to consent, the customer must know what data is being s hared) or without a warrant (and only the data in the warrant) should be illegal.

                That should be sufficient and actually enforceable, since it has very clear boundaries on what’s included.

                • Maeve@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  I think we’re in agreement. I could have said “technologically necessary” to have been more clear, but I don’t agree sale or sharing should be by consent. I think it should be illegal, full stop.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone

          Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.

          …And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.

          As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.

            True, but the US constitution guarantees Chinese citizens, living in or visiting the US or its territories, all the rights in the Constitution. So when TikTok operates in the US and provides services to US customers, it gets the protections of the US Constitution, as well as the obligations of US law.

            TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t

            And this is covered by freedom of the press. There’s no legal requirement for press to be pro-US, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be accurate, it just can’t be fraudulent. If TikTok is being fraudulent, then they should be held accountable for that.

            As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate.

            Yes, according to the law that they’re contesting.

            I’m saying that I don’t think this law is constitutional. I don’t use TikTok, I believe TikTok is dangerous, and I don’t think anyone should use it, but I’m also uncomfortable with the government picking and choosing which apps I can use, especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app. So even though I wish TikTok would disappear, I don’t think that justifies using the law to accomplish that.

          • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            There’s no been proof that Tik Tok sends all the data to China or that China manipulates the algorithm. In fact, to appease the US before, they agreed to let Oracle and a purely US subsidiary look at all their code and data and content moderation. Oracle would spot check the data flows and where it goes. Tik Tok would report to Committee on Foreign Investment in the US on everything, even hiring practices. And a 2021 study found Tik Tok didn’t really collect data beyond the norm of other players in the industry, or beyond what it said it did in it’s policy.

            Most of the claims by a Tik Tok whistleblower that alleged otherwise seem to be from one guy mad at being fired who’s made wild claims, like Merrick Garland instigated his firing, and he only worked there for 6 months.

            All this scaring is literally just because politicians are scared that people in Gaza can use it to report what’s happening to themselves during the genocide, without the blatant censorship of American companies on the issue. Even Romney admitted that’s the reason. I don’t actually use Tik Tok and I think it’s algorithms are bad for our ADHD addled brains, but I would also apply that to YouTube shorts and Instagram stories. They should all be regulated, not banned. Hell, we actually could use more foreign companies that aren’t vulnerable to US censorship, not the opposite. This is especially important since reporters aren’t being let in Gaza and the ones who are are killed. And we’ll probably lose it once they finish their restructuring in Project Texas, although sounds like they’ll be banned before they do.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:

        1. The law inflicts punishment.
        2. The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
        3. Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.

        And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.

        Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          24 hours ago

          And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3

          The bill doesn’t target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.

          unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down

          A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.

          It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn’t the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn’t universal - it’s only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn’t like Justin Trudeau.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose’s friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.

            The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              22 hours ago

              It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose

              Except, again, the business being penalized is the American subsidiary.

              The fact that you think you can remove all context

              The context is that the commercial assets and employees being threatened by the US government are all within US territory.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            #3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.

            The parent company don’t have judicial protections. They’re based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn’t being punished, they’re explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  But explicit prohibition on continued operation if they don’t. ByteDance is not affected outside of the US. Only US employees are being threatened.