I think some are missing the actual point here:
Why does a software/hardware/driver concerned with drawing need to know what wifi-networks are available?
That is tantamount to surveillance.
An absolute no-go.
Edge is Chrome-based these days unfortunately.
And they first leveraged their ad platform to feed people Chrome, then they broke the internet where they could for competitors to gain a greater marketshare to ship this spyware in browserdisguise and now they wanna eat the whole cake.
I have no problem with people wanting to make money,but sabotage and strong arming opponents(e.g. captcha(once again refuses me when I am on firefox)) is just vile.
Anyone giving their data to that corporation and trusting them to do the right thing(project dragonfly anyone) is an veritable idiot.
IMHO it is high time that conglomerate is split up.
Although information is in its name, it gets its full meaning from its suffix.
MISinformation is the missing of information or the mis-leading of an audience by spinning purposefully false rhetoric and delivering arguments for a false narrativvve.
It is very closely related to propaganda, but with a different aim. The aim here is not to have someone look good but to destabelize and subvert.
So although it is containing information in its name, neither it nor propaganda can be labeled information.
Who would want to consume lies freely anyways?
Also, nice addendum of the first amendment btw., the right of US citizens to express their opinions is not being curtailed here. It is just a medium that is under scrutiny and, I might add, for a very very good reason.
I'm not really spinning anything. This is likely the defense TikTok will be using in court. The 1st amendment covers the right to receive information, and it's funny you bring up propaganda because it has even been ruled it covers the right to receive foreign propaganda:
There should be some kind of reciprocity though. If Idaho didn’t allow drivers holding California drivers license to drive in Idaho, I’m sure California will swiftly ban drivers with Idaho licenses in California as well.
If U.S. companies can’t operate in China PR, China PR companies should not have any expectation of unfettered access to U.S. markets.
Also, corporations are NOT people, no matter what SCOTUS says.
It is called a fortified democracy. And absolute democracy like the Weimarer Republik is a dangerous thing. All modern democracies are fortified these days. And it is good that they are. And yes if the US is caught with the hand in the cookie jar the nation in question is not happy, but there is a difference: Spying is passive and not influencing the democratic process of the nation or disrupting it.
The concern with Tiktok is that it is active, trying to disrupt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T_Lu1S0sII
Also, unlike the Bytedance and the Chinese Government, US companies do not run intelligence operations. They are in it solely for the money, otherwise the NSA wouldn't have had to snoop on Google in 2013(?).
and this point
> And also dismantle the law where the US can request any data on any person, even abroad, if the company is US-based
I find questionable. It is too blanketed.
There are international criminals afoot after all. Red Letters do have their purpose as do international treaties for law enforcement to cooperate across borders in a bespoke manner in accordance with their and international laws.
> I find questionable. It is too blanketed. There are international criminals afoot after all. Red Letters do have their purpose as do international treaties for law enforcement to cooperate across borders in a bespoke manner in accordance with their and international laws.
There's a difference between "Hey, France, we would like this info on a known criminal" and "U.S.-based companies have to turn over all data on any person regardless of that data location or the nationality of the person in question".
That's basically the basis for both Schrems I and Schrems II.
The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil
Other jurisdictions have something similar, every company must adhere to the laws of the jurisdiction they want to operate in.
You don't like it as a company, not a problem just don't incorporate in the US and live with the repercussion.
There is nothing that suggests that it is out of the ordinary or malicious.
Where it becomes interesting is access without a warrant, or with a muzzle attached, at large scale. That is the clandestine stuff. The purview of intelligence agencies.
That has been addressed by the EU with legislation; privacy shield was not really the hit, but guess what: MS complied. https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-roll-out-data-b... so spooks from the US will now have a harder time accessing user data at scale without a warrant.
No. Feel free to educate me though. Only request I have, nothing older than 30 years please as I feel it may not be relevant any longer and before long we would argue about the antebellum period and what have you not. And it must be large scale.
Well a lot of agencies do that out of the box because secure by design is not believed. Trust but verify. You see that when intelligence agents talk about cooperation between partners. So in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't really change things.
The one thing it would change though is that it would make the life a bit harder for cyber criminals(think downgrading tls connections).
And the criteria you talked about, they are open. Called capitalism, and regulations those companies operate under. Along the way that abomination of surveillance capitalism was born though.
I know that tactic and the response to this argument is: Two wrongs do not make it right. Just because the they did a wrong the others should be permitted to do it or continue doing it until the other party stops...wink wink?
The answer to that is NO. That is whataboutism and a smoke screen.
But let's entertain those smokescreens even just to see where it leads:
The second Gulf war was outright wrong agreed. The hawks had their day and it was a dark one and all that followed because of it. A falling from grace.
No argument there. But it is not an argument one should make when arguing over operations done by other countries especially since it is not related and long past and the current subject of discussion is happening right now.
The action movie thing... it is their equipment, they may provide it under any condition as they see fit.
I wouldn't want to lend my neighbor a canister either if I knew he chooses to use it to write not so funny stuff in burning letters into my front lawn. I would not be surprised if other militaries would do the same thing if they were to lend their equipment at all.
>Or Operation Mockingbird during the cold war?
Was that even a real operation?
> There is much I left aside ofc, including anything related to the support of the ongoing "military operation" against the palestinian people.
That one is a doozy. The US made it clear that Israel should do more to shield civilians from harm. But let's be clear.
Israel and the US are the wrong party to be mad at.
If you want to be mad: be mad at Hamas, at Iran for supporting Hamas and at China and Russia for using it in a game of Geopolitical checkers in the UN security council.
Without the scourge that is Hamas, who still continue to shoot missiles from South Gaza and who deny a sovereign nation the right to exist, non of this would've happened.
Hamas uses the Palestinian people as shields, uses humanitarian institutions(e.g. hospitals) as hide outs and ammunition storages and subverts aide organizations created to help the people in the Gaza strip. They also slaughtered innocent civilians and kidnapped 100s a few months ago.
And the people in Gaza should also be mad at their long ago elected inapt and impotent president and their dysfunctional governing bodies. And their inability to face down those terrorists hiding amongst them.(I cannot blame them though, it is a horrid and couraguous thing to do in any circumstance.)
And let's entertain the scenario that the US would step out.... well the entire Middle East would implode or explode like a powder keg. Trade would also suffer considering the shipping routes, oil and other things. And then Iran with Russia's and/or China's blessing would then do evil things... not a very comforting thought either, especially if you give a hoot about religion.
Radio and newspapers(including internet articles here in general) are a one way street.
With Tiktok, you not only get access to the users device via the app, but it is also a two way street. Tiktok gets to choose what it feeds you.
And what you describe is also true in a lot of countries(I can choose my medium). However, with newspapers, radio and television what you feed the population is readily visible to anyone.
I can turn on the telly to see what is being streamed. This is not the case with an app. Unless the government watches you 24/7 and I doubt that. The costs are prohibitive.
The thing that does exist is metadata. If I were to visit terrorist.com or bombmanual.org.uk I would make a list. But watching TikTok all that is being seen is me communicating with content-servers(here the subject that needs to be watched also changes from the user(me) to the proprietor(the company)) from them and protocolling the content of everything watched, unless you break encryption at scale, and monitor everyone is also prohibitive. Not to mention analysis of the content. So Tiktok is the perfect vehicle for subversion of a foreign nation if I want to play for time.
Yes, but you think that possibility of government oversight/monitoring is an inherent necessity for government permitting any kind of media to operate in the US?
If doesn't work in many cases anyway, Government has no way to track who is tuning in and listening to hostile radio broadcasts.
Even it might be hostile propaganda, First ammendment protects both publishing and consuming content, without any "national security" considerations. But US lawmakers are now seemingly keen to introduce such conditions in the publishing and consuming of content.
During the cold war it was perfectly legal for the Soviet Life magazine to be published in the US and for people to buy and read it.
First ammendment really does say that "Congress shall make no law .." without any caveats for national security or even war-time exemptions.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the SCOTUS.
All very good points! Which apply to all social networks, not only TikTok. The difference with TikTok being that the US do not have control over it, and they are not used to that.
The US law in question actually isn't specific to TikTok either. That's all that is brought up in the media and by politicians because it gets more attention, but the law is much .ore wide reaching.
This is the government grabbing the authority to ban online services that they deem a national risk. The bill would honestly have been much more benign if it was a few pages spelling out a specific ban on TokTok. Hell, I don't think they'd even need a law to have Google and Apple pull the app from the app stores.
It is about connotation.
I play Go against you.
You are my opponent or, if it is a tournament, I could also call you my adversary(connotation is a bit stronger, less matter of fact like opponent, more around competition now).
After the game, we sit down and have tea and laugh.
Now let's explore the connotation of enemy.
Playing Go against you calling you my enemy is outright wrong.
However, if you were my enemy, I would not drink tea and have a laugh with you afterwards.
I wouldn't even be playing a game of Go against you, but rather trying to do other not so nice things to you.
Such is the nature of connotation.
Being erudite helps here ;) .
But you need to control the platform to siphon user data , have a foothold into everyone's phone and to peddle misinformation and entertainment instead of education (Chinese version operates differently than the non-Chinese one).
There is no greater vehicle to deliver a hooking mechanism to target specific users for spyware upload than an app that is installed on a lot of platforms.
Weechat is one other such tool btw. and that thing behaves strangely compared to e.g. Whatsapp if you install it.
