bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,460
Reputation
8,326
Daps
158,385

TIKTOK THREAT IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, U.S. INTELLIGENCE ADMITS​

“We have nothing to add,” the FBI said, when asked for evidence of TikTok’s actual threat.

Ken Klippenstein

March 16 2024, 11:31 a.m.

THE PURPORTED THREAT of TikTok to U.S. national security has inflated into a hysteria of Chinese spy balloon proportions, but the official record tells a different story: U.S. intelligence has produced no evidence that the popular social media site has ever coordinated with Beijing. That fact hasn’t stopped many in Congress and even President Joe Biden from touting legislation that would force the sale of the app, as the TikTok frenzy fills the news pages with empty conjecture and innuendo.

In interviews and testimony to Congress about TikTok, leaders of the FBI, CIA, and the director of national intelligence have in fact been careful to qualify the national security threat posed by TikTok as purely hypothetical. With access to much of the government’s most sensitive intelligence, they are well placed to know.

The basic charge is that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, a Chinese company, could be compelled by the government in Beijing to use their app in targeted operations to manipulate public opinion, collect mass data on Americans, and even spy on individual users. (TikTok says it has never shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government and would not do so if asked. This week, TikTok CEO Shou Chew said that “there’s no CCP ownership” of ByteDance, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.)

Though top national security officials seem happy to echo these allegations of Chinese control of TikTok, they stop short of saying that China has ever actually coordinated with the company.

Typical is an interview CIA Director William Burns gave to CNN in 2022, where he said it was “troubling to see what the Chinese government could do to manipulate TikTok.” Not what the Chinese government has done, but what it could do.

What China could do turns out to be a recurring theme in the statements of the top national security officials.


FBI Director Christopher Wray said during a 2022 talk at the University of Michigan that TikTok’s “parent company is controlled by the Chinese government, and it gives them the potential [emphasis added] to leverage the app in ways that I think should concern us.” Wray went on to cite TikTok’s ability to control its recommendation algorithm, which he said “allows them to manipulate content and if they want to [emphasis added], to use it for influence operations.”

In the same talk, Wray three times referred to the Chinese government’s “ability” to spy on TikTok users but once again stopped short of saying that they do so.

“They also have the ability to collect data through it on users which can be used for traditional espionage operations, for example,” Wray said. “They also have the ability on it to get access, they have essential access to software devices. So you’re talking about millions of devices and that gives them the ability to engage in different kinds of malicious cyber activity through that.”

Wray is referring to the potential ability, according to U.S. intelligence, to commandeer phones and computers connecting to TikTok through apps and the website.

In testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee in November 2022, Wray was even more circumspect, stressing that the Chinese government could use TikTok for foreign influence operations but only “if they so chose.” When asked by Rep. Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., if the Chinese government has used TikTok to collect information about Americans for purposes other than targeted ads and content, Wray only could acknowledge that it was a “possibility.”

“I would say we do have national security concerns, at least from the FBI’s end, about TikTok,” Wray said. “They include the possibility that the Chinese government could use it to control data collection on millions of users or control the recommendation algorithm which could be used for foreign influence operations if they so chose.”

The lack of evidence is not for lack of trying, as Wray alluded to during the same hearing. When asked by Harshbarger what is being done to investigate the Chinese government’s involvement in TikTok, Wray replied that he would see whether “any specific investigative work … could be incorporated into the classified briefing I referred to.”

The FBI, when asked by The Intercept if it has any evidence that TikTok has coordinated with the Chinese government, referred to Wray’s prior statements — many of which are quoted in this article. “We have nothing to add to the Director’s comments,” an FBI spokesperson said.

The fiscal year 2025 FBI budget request to Congress, which outlines its resource priorities in the coming year, was unveiled this week but makes no mention of TikTok in its 94 pages. In fact, it makes no mention of China whatsoever.

Since at least 2020, the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has investigated the implications of ByteDance’s acquisition of TikTok. The investigation followed an executive order by former President Donald Trump that sought to force TikTok to divest from its parent company. When that investigation failed to force a sale, a frustrated Congress decided to get involved, with the House passing legislation on Wednesday that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok.

In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, the highest-ranking intelligence official in the U.S. government, was asked about the possibility that China might use TikTok to influence the upcoming 2024 presidential elections. Haines said only that it could not be discounted.

“We cannot rule out that the CCP could use it,” Haines said.

The relatively measured tone adopted by top intelligence officials contrasts sharply with the alarmism emanating from Congress. In 2022, Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., deemed TikTok “digital fentanyl,” going on to co-author a column in the Washington Post with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., calling for TikTok to be banned. Gallagher and Rubio later introduced legislation to do so, and 39 states have, as of this writing, banned the use of TikTok on government devices.

None of this is to say that China hasn’t used TikTok to influence public opinion and even, it turns out, to try to interfere in American elections. “TikTok accounts run by a [People’s Republic of China] propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022,” says the annual Intelligence Community threat assessment released on Monday. But the assessment provides no evidence that TikTok coordinated with the Chinese government. In fact, governments — including the United States — are known to use social media to influence public opinion abroad.

“The problem with TikTok isn’t related to their ownership; it’s a problem of surveillance capitalism and it’s true of all social media companies,” computer security expert Bruce Schneier told The Intercept. “In 2016 Russia did this with Facebook and they didn’t have to own Facebook — they just bought ads like everybody else.”

This week, Reuters reported that as president, Trump signed a covert action order authorizing the CIA to use social media to influence and manipulate domestic Chinese public opinion and views on China. Other covert American cyber influence programs are known to exist with regard to Russia, Iran, terrorist groups, and other foreign actors.

In other words, everybody’s doing it.
 

Rice N Beans

Junior Hayley Stan
Supporter
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
10,904
Reputation
1,455
Daps
22,597
Reppin
Chicago, IL
21India-TikTok-01-gvzt-superJumbo.jpg

w7UkJ3a.png


:picard: :dead: Breh got the demonic Indian Lust face on 100.
 

nyknick

refuel w/ chocolate milk
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
18,714
Reputation
6,060
Daps
90,741
People saying this is about data protection have not paid attention to what little our legislatures have done since social media was seen as potentially harmful.

They straight-up do not care. Everything about this is ensuring American companies control the internet in the non-Chinese world. Nothing else.

Sadly, we are fortunate the EU has done small regulatory work on this, but that's not close to enough.
People are either gullible or disingenuous.

If politicians or any government body genuinely cared about data protection and reducing harms of social media they would use the scrutiny and perceived threat of TikTok as a jump off point for a large scale social media legislation. But they have no intention of addressing problems of social media and they're not even trying to ban TikTok, they're just forcing a sale of the app into American hands.

Basically none of our companies are able to match addiction levels and the brain rot TikTok is able to inflict on the population. So instead of curbing the ability of companies to do this across the board we'll just take the app, continue with business as usual and use it to peddle our soft power when necessary.

I don't understand how Cambridge Analytica is supposed to bolster an argument against TikTok.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
45,912
Reputation
6,930
Daps
146,318
Reppin
CookoutGang
If you really care about data privacy standards there really is no argument to make against harsher requirements for TikTok.

So you’re probably just lying about it you think you’re making a good argument. Which ironically, is no different than the accusations being made in support.
 

nyknick

refuel w/ chocolate milk
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
18,714
Reputation
6,060
Daps
90,741
If you really care about data privacy standards there really is no argument to make against harsher requirements for TikTok.

So you’re probably just lying about it you think you’re making a good argument. Which ironically, is no different than the accusations being made in support.
You either didn't read anything about the House bill against TikTok, didn't read any parts of my previous post or you have major comprehension issues :hubie:
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
45,912
Reputation
6,930
Daps
146,318
Reppin
CookoutGang
You either didn't read anything about the House bill against TikTok, didn't read any parts of my previous post or you have major comprehension issues :hubie:
No, I think it’s a simple issue as to why we’ve had long discussions surrounding TikTok for years.

There’s currently no accountability and therefore no viable mechanism for consent of the use of personal data.

I wasn’t responding directly to you or I would have quoted you.

Enjoy your night.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,460
Reputation
8,326
Daps
158,385

Facebook snooped on users’ Snapchat traffic in secret project, documents reveal​

Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai @lorenzofb / 5:05 PM EDT•March 26, 2024

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Image Credits: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In 2016, Facebook launched a secret project designed to intercept and decrypt the network traffic between people using Snapchat’s app and its servers. The goal was to understand users’ behavior and help Facebook compete with Snapchat, according to newly unsealed court documents. Facebook called this “Project Ghostbusters,” in a clear reference to Snapchat’s ghost-like logo.

On Tuesday, a federal court in California released new documents discovered as part of the class action lawsuit between consumers and Meta, Facebook’s parent company.

The newly released documents reveal how Meta tried to gain a competitive advantage over its competitors, including Snapchat and later Amazon and YouTube, by analyzing the network traffic of how its users were interacting with Meta’s competitors. Given these apps’ use of encryption, Facebook needed to develop special technology to get around it.

One of the documents details Facebook’s Project Ghostbusters. The project was part of the company’s In-App Action Panel (IAPP) program, which used a technique for “intercepting and decrypting” encrypted app traffic from users of Snapchat, and later from users of YouTube and Amazon, the consumers’ lawyers wrote in the document.

The document includes internal Facebook emails discussing the project.

“Whenever someone asks a question about Snapchat, the answer is usually that because their traffic is encrypted we have no analytics about them,” Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg wrote in an email dated June 9, 2016, which was published as part of the lawsuit. “Given how quickly they’re growing, it seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them. Perhaps we need to do panels or write custom software. You should figure out how to do this.”

Facebook’s engineers solution was to use Onavo, a VPN-like service that Facebook acquired in 2013. In 2019, Facebook shut down Onavo after a TechCrunch investigation revealed that Facebook had been secretly paying teenagers to use Onavo so the company could access all of their web activity.

After Zuckerberg’s email, the Onavo team took on the project and a month later proposed a solution: so-called kits that can be installed on iOS and Android that intercept traffic for specific subdomains, “allowing us to read what would otherwise be encrypted traffic so we can measure in-app usage,” read an email from July 2016. “This is a ‘man-in-the-middle’ approach.”

CONTACT US​

Do you know more about Project Ghostbusters? Or other privacy issues at Facebook? From a non-work device, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram, Keybase and Wire @lorenzofb, or email. You also can contact TechCrunch via SecureDrop.

A man-in-the-middle attack — nowadays also called adversary-in-the-middle — is an attack where hackers intercept internet traffic flowing from one device to another over a network. When the network traffic is unencrypted, this type of attack allows the hackers to read the data inside, such as usernames, passwords, and other in-app activity.

Given that Snapchat encrypted the traffic between the app and its servers, this network analysis technique was not going to be effective. This is why Facebook engineers proposed using Onavo, which when activated had the advantage of reading all of the device’s network traffic before it got encrypted and sent over the internet.

“We now have the capability to measure detailed in-app activity” from “parsing snapchat [sic] analytics collected from incentivized participants in Onavo’s research program,” read another email.

Later, according to the court documents, Facebook expanded the program to Amazon and YouTube.

Inside Facebook, there wasn’t a consensus on whether Project Ghostbusters was a good idea. Some employees, including Jay Parikh, Facebook’s then-head of infrastructure engineering, and Pedro Canahuati, the then-head of security engineering, expressed their concern.

“I can’t think of a good argument for why this is okay. No security person is ever comfortable with this, no matter what consent we get from the general public. The general public just doesn’t know how this stuff works,” Canahuati wrote in an email, included in the court documents.

In 2020, Sarah Grabert and Maximilian Klein filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that the company lied about its data collection activities and exploited the data it “deceptively extracted” from users to identify competitors and then unfairly fight against these new companies.

An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment.

Google, Meta, and Snap did not respond to requests for comment.

This story was updated to correct the link to the discovery documents in the fourth paragraph.
 

Geek Nasty

Brain Knowledgeably Whizzy
Supporter
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
30,428
Reputation
4,670
Daps
114,787
Reppin
South Kakalaka
Never even thought about it that way but that makes perfect sense. Since until recently they required foreign car companies to form joint ventures with Chinese companies.

And it's not like Google/Facebook would refuse any request from Chinese government if it allowed them access to their market.
Its censorship and control. You can have your social media company do business in China so long as your servers are in their company so that they can access them.
 

Rice N Beans

Junior Hayley Stan
Supporter
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
10,904
Reputation
1,455
Daps
22,597
Reppin
Chicago, IL

Facebook snooped on users’ Snapchat traffic in secret project, documents reveal​

Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai @lorenzofb / 5:05 PM EDT•March 26, 2024

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Image Credits: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In 2016, Facebook launched a secret project designed to intercept and decrypt the network traffic between people using Snapchat’s app and its servers. The goal was to understand users’ behavior and help Facebook compete with Snapchat, according to newly unsealed court documents. Facebook called this “Project Ghostbusters,” in a clear reference to Snapchat’s ghost-like logo.

On Tuesday, a federal court in California released new documents discovered as part of the class action lawsuit between consumers and Meta, Facebook’s parent company.

The newly released documents reveal how Meta tried to gain a competitive advantage over its competitors, including Snapchat and later Amazon and YouTube, by analyzing the network traffic of how its users were interacting with Meta’s competitors. Given these apps’ use of encryption, Facebook needed to develop special technology to get around it.

One of the documents details Facebook’s Project Ghostbusters. The project was part of the company’s In-App Action Panel (IAPP) program, which used a technique for “intercepting and decrypting” encrypted app traffic from users of Snapchat, and later from users of YouTube and Amazon, the consumers’ lawyers wrote in the document.

The document includes internal Facebook emails discussing the project.

“Whenever someone asks a question about Snapchat, the answer is usually that because their traffic is encrypted we have no analytics about them,” Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg wrote in an email dated June 9, 2016, which was published as part of the lawsuit. “Given how quickly they’re growing, it seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them. Perhaps we need to do panels or write custom software. You should figure out how to do this.”

Facebook’s engineers solution was to use Onavo, a VPN-like service that Facebook acquired in 2013. In 2019, Facebook shut down Onavo after a TechCrunch investigation revealed that Facebook had been secretly paying teenagers to use Onavo so the company could access all of their web activity.

After Zuckerberg’s email, the Onavo team took on the project and a month later proposed a solution: so-called kits that can be installed on iOS and Android that intercept traffic for specific subdomains, “allowing us to read what would otherwise be encrypted traffic so we can measure in-app usage,” read an email from July 2016. “This is a ‘man-in-the-middle’ approach.”

CONTACT US​

Do you know more about Project Ghostbusters? Or other privacy issues at Facebook? From a non-work device, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram, Keybase and Wire @lorenzofb, or email. You also can contact TechCrunch via SecureDrop.

A man-in-the-middle attack — nowadays also called adversary-in-the-middle — is an attack where hackers intercept internet traffic flowing from one device to another over a network. When the network traffic is unencrypted, this type of attack allows the hackers to read the data inside, such as usernames, passwords, and other in-app activity.

Given that Snapchat encrypted the traffic between the app and its servers, this network analysis technique was not going to be effective. This is why Facebook engineers proposed using Onavo, which when activated had the advantage of reading all of the device’s network traffic before it got encrypted and sent over the internet.

“We now have the capability to measure detailed in-app activity” from “parsing snapchat [sic] analytics collected from incentivized participants in Onavo’s research program,” read another email.

Later, according to the court documents, Facebook expanded the program to Amazon and YouTube.

Inside Facebook, there wasn’t a consensus on whether Project Ghostbusters was a good idea. Some employees, including Jay Parikh, Facebook’s then-head of infrastructure engineering, and Pedro Canahuati, the then-head of security engineering, expressed their concern.

“I can’t think of a good argument for why this is okay. No security person is ever comfortable with this, no matter what consent we get from the general public. The general public just doesn’t know how this stuff works,” Canahuati wrote in an email, included in the court documents.

In 2020, Sarah Grabert and Maximilian Klein filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that the company lied about its data collection activities and exploited the data it “deceptively extracted” from users to identify competitors and then unfairly fight against these new companies.

An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment.

Google, Meta, and Snap did not respond to requests for comment.

This story was updated to correct the link to the discovery documents in the fourth paragraph.

DoJ needs to clamp down on this poppycock. Decrypting traffic on a different-yet-competition social media platform to snoop on user habits? :stopitslime:

I hate that otherwise decent services like VPNs get poisoned in public perception by things like this.
 

BaggerofTea

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
49,935
Reputation
-2,223
Daps
241,867
first warm friday they are going, they are going to pass this shyt in the evening
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
56,460
Reputation
8,326
Daps
158,385



1/3
this isn’t about TikTok, it’s about censorship. TikTok has become incredibly effective in educating the public on topics main news outlets won’t even cover.
It’s an accesible way for people to share crucial information in a digestible format. They want to censor that.

2/3
While you’re here!

3/3
It’s actually so worrying. My FYP will give me Palestinian voices, I just learned about the prison strikes, and there is so much generally good educational and call-to-action content on there. And you’re right. They can’t control it so they want to get rid of it.
GIjtM2PawAADvRj.jpg

GIj7d35WAAArLUE.jpg

GIj7d43XwAAOV7E.jpg
 
Top