• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 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.

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 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

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 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.

  • aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

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

    Actually, that time was 40 years ago.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 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.

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      21 hours 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
      9
      ·
      22 hours 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.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 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
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’d rather they just ban spy apps in general…but that’s a “dream a little dream, it’s never gonna happen” type of thing.

      • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        that data goes to the US government instead of to the CCP

        Going to blow people’s minds when they find out Temu data also goes to the US government and Facebook data also goes to the CCP.

        This shit is just a commodity. It’s auctioned off at the bid rate. The NSA doesn’t just lay claim to this data, it buys it. And these Big Data companies are only handing it over because of the absurd margins NSA (and MI5 and the rest of the Five Eyes) directors are willing to pay.

        Your data isn’t any safer because the parent company is owned by a foreign plutocrat. This is a big club and you ain’t in it.

        • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Oh no, I’m not under any illusion that my data is safer with any of them lol. I’m just saying that that’s why the US doesn’t ban American social networks/companies. Because it’s all about control.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 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
        ·
        21 hours 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
          ·
          21 hours 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
    82
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 day 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
      52
      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
        16
        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
              ·
              23 hours 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?

        • 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.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        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.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            22 hours 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
                  3
                  ·
                  17 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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          19 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
            ·
            19 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
              3
              ·
              17 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.