US house overwhelmingly passes bill to ban tiktok in the US

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,804
Reputation
7,926
Daps
148,678
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/14...wont-do-shyt-to-deal-with-any-actual-threats/

Once More With Feeling: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional & Won’t Do shyt To Deal With Any Actual Threats​

Overhype

from the​

Thu, Mar 14th 2024 09:26am - Mike Masnick

Over the last few days, we’ve had a few posts about the latest attempt to ban TikTok in the US (and to people who say it’s only a divestiture bill: there is a ban in the language of the bill if ByteDance won’t divest).

Yesterday, unsurprisingly, the House voted overwhelmingly, 352 to 65, to pass that bill. The 15 Republicans and 50 Democrats who voted no make up an odd mix. You have some extreme Trump supporters, who probably are voting no because the boss man said so, and then a random assortment of Democrats, including a bunch from California. I thought Rep. Sara Jacobs from the San Diego area put out a particularly good statement on why this bill is so stupid:

As a member of both the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees, I am keenly aware of the threat that PRC information operations can pose, especially as they relate to our elections. However, after reviewing the intelligence, I do not believe that this bill is the answer to those threats. Banning TikTok won’t protect Americans from targeted misinformation or misuse of their personal data, which American data brokers routinely sell and share. This is a blunt instrument for serious concerns, and if enacted, would mark a huge expansion of government power to ban apps in the future. Instead, we need comprehensive data privacy legislation, alongside thoughtful guardrails for social media platforms – whether those platforms are funded by companies in the PRC, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the United States.

Taking this unprecedented step also undermines our reputation around the world. We can’t credibly hold other countries to one set of democratic values while giving ourselves a free pass to restrict freedom of speech. The United States has rightly criticized others for censorship and banning specific social media platforms in the past. Doing so ourselves now would tarnish our credibility when it matters most and trample on the civil liberties of 150 million Americans – a vast majority of whom are young Americans – who use TikTok for their livelihoods, news, communication, and entertainment. Ultimately, all Americans should have the freedom to decide for themselves how and where to express themselves and what information they want to consume.”

I think the second paragraph here is the key one. People keep saying “but they do the same to us.” That’s no excuse. We shouldn’t take a page from the Chinese censorship playbook and basically give them the moral high ground, combined with the ability to point to this move as justification for the shenanigans they’ve pulled in banning US companies from China.

Don’t let the authoritarians set the agenda. We should be better than that.

But also, her first paragraph is important as well. To date no one has shown an actual evidence of TikTok being dangerous. Instead, all that people will tell me is that there was some sort of classified briefing about it. From Rep. Jacobs’ statement we see that she was able to see that classified intel, and did not find it convincing at all.

I even find myself in rare agreement with Rep. Thomas Massie, who once blocked me on Twitter. He did so in response to me calling out his First Amendment violations in blocking people on Twitter (he eventually removed the block after the Knight First Amendment Institute sent him a letter on my behalf). Rep. Massie may have a somewhat conditional take on the First Amendment, but he correctly pointed out just how dangerous this bill would be:

The President will be given the power to ban WEB SITES, not just Apps. The person breaking the new law is deemed to be the U.S. (or offshore) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE or App Store, not the “foreign adversary.”

Massie also pointed (as we did earlier this week) to the clearly lobbied-for (hi, Yelp lobbyists!) “exclusion” for review websites as proof that people know this law covers websites.

I stand by the point we’ve been making for multiple years now: banning TikTok is a stupid, performative, unconstitutional, authoritarian move that doesn’t do even the slightest bit to stop China from (1) getting data on Americans or (2) using propaganda to try to influence people (which are the two issues most frequently used to justify a ban).

Banning TikTok, rather than passing comprehensive federal privacy legislation, is nothing but xenophobic theater. China can (and does) already buy a ton of data on Americans because we refuse to pass any regulation regarding data brokers who make this data available (contrary to popular opinion, Facebook and Google don’t actually sell your data, but data brokers who collect it from lots of other sources do).

Meanwhile, there’s little to no evidence that China is “manipulating” sentiment with TikTok, and there’s even less evidence that it would be effective if they were trying to do so. Public sentiment in the US regarding China is reaching record lows, with the vast majority of Americans reasonably concerned about China’s role in the world. So if China is using TikTok to propagandize to Americans, it’s doing a shytty job of it.

The US has dealt with foreign propaganda for ages. And we don’t ban it. Part of free speech is that you have to deal with the fact that nonsense propaganda and disinformation exists. There are ways to deal with it and respond to it that don’t involve banning speech. It’s astounding to me how quickly people give up their principles out of a weird, xenophobic fear that somehow China has magic pixie dust hidden within TikTok to turn Americans’ brains to mush.

The Supreme Court has reviewed this kind of thing before and said that, no the US cannot ban foreign propaganda just because it’s scared of what that propaganda says. In that case, the government sought to restrict the delivery of “communist political propaganda” from outside the country. The court struck down the restriction on First Amendment grounds, stating that it was “a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the [recipient’s] First Amendment rights.”

As the court noted in that case, the setup of the law was “at war with the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate and discussion that are contemplated by the First Amendment.”

In the US, we’re supposed to believe in freedom of speech, even if that freedom of speech comes in the form of “foreign communist propaganda.” If we survived that same foreign communist propaganda for decades in other forms, it seems like we can survive it coming from an app designed to highlight short videos of dance moves.

Again, we can pass data protection laws if we’re afraid of how the data is going to be used, because China doesn’t need TikTok to get that data. And we can counter Chinese propaganda. But part of doing so has to be not hiding it and acting like it’s so powerful that Americans are powerless against it. You counter it by showing how freedom can resist such efforts at manipulation.

I have no idea if the Senate will actually take up this bill, though there’s good reason to believe they will. However, such a ban would be a huge mistake, reflect poorly on American values, and show how quickly we’re willing to ignore the First Amendment on some misguided fear of a successful app from a foreign country.

Filed Under: data protection, privacy, sara jacobs, thomas massie, tiktok ban

Companies: bytedance, tiktok
 

Json

Superstar
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
12,309
Reputation
1,328
Daps
37,233
Reppin
Central VA
That's kind of the point - Chinese government stays banning American software products - if there were full reciprocity maybe things would be different.

I think people are naive to think that the Chinese government has no access to this data and no ill-intentions. (Not saying you think that)
I think the problem is that the government and tech companies have made it so hard to protect your information people have just accepted it for the most part.

I mean who hasn’t had to change their password because it was involved in a data breach. They barely alert you anymore it’s so common.

So to threaten people, real or perceived, with Chinese attacks is going to fall on deaf ears.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,804
Reputation
7,926
Daps
148,678

Could Germany be the first in Europe to ban TikTok? Lawmakers call for debate following US vote​

The icon for the video sharing TikTok app is seen on a smartphone.

By Anna Desmarais

Published on 22/03/2024 - 09:31•Updated 09:31

Share this article Comments

Some German MPs on a parliamentary intelligence board think the country should consider a harder stance on TikTok.

German politicians are discussing whether they need to harden their stance on TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app for short social media videos.

It comes a few days after the US House of Representatives voted unanimously in favour of legislation that could force ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, to sell the app or face a complete ban from app stores in the United States.

The bill still needs to be examined by the US Senate before it becomes law.



Multiple members of a German parliamentary board that monitors intelligence services have spoken recently about the topic.

Roderich Kiesewetter, vice chairman of the Bundestag’s intelligence control committee and member of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), told German daily the Handelsblatt that the country should consider a "general ban on TikTok" if stricter regulation of the platform can’t be "implemented efficiently".

Some politicians in Germany consider the app "a danger to our democracy," Kiesewetter continued, because it is an "important instrument" in China and Russia’s hybrid warfare.

There are roughly 19 million users of TikTok in Germany, according to a 2023 government response tabled in the Bundestag.




Regulation instead of an outright ban​

Jens Zimmerman, a member of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, said, according to German broadcaster BR, that the government should consider at least banning the app on federal devices. This is the case for the EU institutions, for instance.

Others, like Ralf Stegner from Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Konstantin von Notz, the deputy leader of Germany’s Green Party, said they would like to see how regulations will work instead of a full-out ban which can be hard to enforce.

By regulatory efforts, Stegner and von Notz are referring to the Digital Services Act (DSA).



The act, which came into effect this year, requires Internet companies to take consistent action to make sure disinformation and illegal content are not being spread on their platforms.

In February, the European Commission announced an investigation into TikTok under the DSA for breaches related to "the protection of minors, advertising transparency, data access as well as risk management of addictive design".

The Commission told Euronews Next in a statement that they have no comment about the ongoing TikTok ban bill in the United States, nor on talks in Germany.



A Commission spokesperson said that decisions on IT security measures "lie with the relevant national authority".

The statement added that the DSA can as a last resort put in place a temporary "suspension or restriction of access of recipients to the service," if they don't comply with the legislation.

The suspension of TikTok on corporate devices is still in place, the Commission added.
 

3rdWorld

Veteran
Bushed
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
41,838
Reputation
3,205
Daps
122,685
BBC

Millions of Americans caught up in Chinese hacking plot - US​

Mattea Bubalo - BBC News
Tue, March 26, 2024 at 6:57 AM GMT

3c6f43ffc06762ddf321f822c0503977

Millions of Americans' online accounts have been caught up in a "sinister" Chinese hacking plot that targeted US officials, the justice department and FBI said on Monday.

Seven Chinese nationals have been charged with enacting a widespread cyber-attack campaign.
They are accused of ties to a hacking operation that ran for 14 years.

The US state department announced a reward of up to $10m (£8m) for information on the seven men.
The justice department said hackers had targeted US and foreign critics of China, businesses, and politicians.
The seven men allegedly sent over 10,000 "malicious emails, impacting thousands of victims, across multiple continents", in what the justice department called a "prolific global hacking operation" backed by China's government.
"Today's announcement exposes China's continuous and brash efforts to undermine our nation's cybersecurity and target Americans and our innovation," FBI Director Christopher Wray said.

"As long as China continues to target the US and our partners, the FBI will continue to send a clear message that cyber espionage will not be tolerated, and we will tirelessly pursue those who threaten our nation's security and prosperity," he added.
The charges come after the UK's government also accused China of being responsible for "malicious cyber campaigns" targeting the country's Electoral Commission and politicians. Diplomats at the Chinese embassy in London said it "strongly opposes" the accusations, calling them "completely fabricated and malicious slanders".
New Zealand's government also said its parliament had been targeted by China-backed hackers, the New Zealand Herald reported.
A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington DC said "without valid evidence, relevant countries jumped to an unwarranted conclusion" and "made groundless accusations".

In an indictment setting out charges against the seven Chinese men, US prosecutors said the hacking resulted in the confirmed or potential compromise of work accounts, personal emails, online storage and telephone call records.
The emails they are accused of sending targets often appeared to be from prominent news outlets or journalists, containing hidden tracking links. If a person opened the email sent to them, their information - including their location and IP addresses - would be sent to a server allegedly controlled by the seven defendants.

This information was then used to enable more "direct and sophisticated targeted hacking, such as compromising the recipients' home routers and other electronic devices", US prosecutors said.
As well as targeting US government officials working at the White House and US state departments, and in some cases their spouses, they were also said to have targeted foreign dissidents globally.

In one example cited by the justice department, the men "successfully compromised Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and their associates located in Hong Kong, the United States, and other foreign locations with identical malware".
US companies were hacked too, with the men allegedly targeting defence, information technology, telecommunications, manufacturing and trade, finance, consulting, legal, and research industries.
Companies targeted included defence contractors who provide services to the US military and "a leading provider of 5G network equipment", the justice department said.

:francis:

China absolutely doesnt believe in personal space and privacy..even in China
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,804
Reputation
7,926
Daps
148,678

LEAVING AMERICANS IN THE DARK —​


NSA finally admits to spying on Americans by purchasing sensitive data​


Violating Americans’ privacy "not just unethical but illegal," senator says.​

ASHLEY BELANGER - 1/26/2024, 3:36 PM

NSA finally admits to spying on Americans by purchasing sensitive data

Enlarge

NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto

127

The National Security Agency (NSA) has admitted to buying records from data brokers detailing which websites and apps Americans use, US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) revealed Thursday.

This news follows Wyden's push last year that forced the FBI to admit that it was also buying Americans' sensitive data. Now, the senator is calling on all intelligence agencies to "stop buying personal data from Americans that has been obtained illegally by data brokers."

"The US government should not be funding and legitimizing a shady industry whose flagrant violations of Americans' privacy are not just unethical but illegal," Wyden said in a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines. “To that end, I request that you adopt a policy that, going forward," intelligence agencies "may only purchase data about Americans that meets the standard for legal data sales established by the FTC.”

Wyden suggested that the intelligence community might be helping data brokers violate an FTC order requiring that Americans are provided "clear and conspicuous" disclosures and give informed consent before their data can be sold to third parties. In the seven years that Wyden has been investigating data brokers, he said that he has not been made "aware of any company that provides such a warning to users before collecting their data."

The FTC's order came after reaching a settlement with a data broker called X-Mode, which admitted to selling sensitive location data without user consent and even to selling data after users revoked consent.

In his letter, Wyden referred to this order as the FTC outlining "new rules," but that's not exactly what happened. Instead of issuing rules, FTC settlements often serve as "common law," signaling to marketplaces which practices violate laws like the FTC Act.

According to the FTC's analysis of the order on its site, X-Mode violated the FTC Act by "unfairly selling sensitive data, unfairly failing to honor consumers' privacy choices, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data without consent verification, unfairly categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics for marketing purposes, deceptively failing to disclose use of location data, and providing the means and instrumentalities to engage in deceptive acts or practices."

The FTC declined to comment on whether the order also applies to data purchases by intelligence agencies. In defining "location data," the FTC order seems to carve out exceptions for any data collected outside the US and used for either "security purposes" or "national security purposes conducted by federal agencies or other federal entities."

NSA must purge data, Wyden says​

NSA officials told Wyden that not only is the intelligence agency purchasing data on Americans located in the US but that it also bought Americans' Internet metadata.

Wyden warned that the former "can reveal sensitive, private information about a person based on where they go on the Internet, including visiting websites related to mental health resources, resources for survivors of sexual assault or domestic abuse, or visiting a telehealth provider who focuses on birth control or abortion medication." And the latter "can be equally sensitive."

To fix the problem, Wyden wants intelligence communities to agree to inventory and then "promptly" purge the data that they allegedly illegally collected on Americans without a warrant. Wyden said that this process has allowed agencies like the NSA and the FBI "in effect" to use "their credit card to circumvent the Fourth Amendment."

X-Mode's practices, the FTC said, were likely to cause "substantial injury to consumers that are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition and are not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves." Wyden's spokesperson, Keith Chu, told Ars that "the data brokers selling Internet records to the government appear to engage in nearly identical conduct" to X-Mode.

The FTC's order also indicates "that Americans must be told and agree to their data being sold to 'government contractors for national security purposes' for the practice to be allowed," Wyden said.

DoD defends shady data broker dealings​

In response to Wyden's letter to Haines, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, Ronald Moultrie, said that the Department of Defense (DoD) "adheres to high standards of privacy and civil liberties protections" when buying Americans' location data. He also said that he was "not aware of any requirement in US law or judicial opinion" forcing the DoD to "obtain a court order in order to acquire, access, or use" commercially available information that "is equally available for purchase to foreign adversaries, US companies, and private persons as it is to the US government."

In another response to Wyden, NSA leader General Paul Nakasone told Wyden that the "NSA takes steps to minimize the collection of US person information" and "continues to acquire only the most useful data relevant to mission requirements." That includes some commercially available information on Americans "where one side of the communications is a US Internet Protocol address and the other is located abroad," data which Nakasone said is "critical to protecting the US Defense Industrial Base" that sustains military weapons systems.

While the FTC has so far cracked down on a few data brokers, Wyden believes that the shady practice of selling data without Americans' informed consent is an "industry-wide" problem in need of regulation. Rather than being a customer in this sketchy marketplace, intelligence agencies should stop funding companies allegedly guilty of what the FTC has described as "intrusive" and "unchecked" surveillance of Americans, Wyden said.

According to Moultrie, DNI Haines decides what information sources are "relevant and appropriate" to aid intelligence agencies.

But Wyden believes that Americans should have the opportunity to opt out of consenting to such invasive, secretive data collection. He said that by purchasing data from shady brokers, US intelligence agencies have helped create a world where consumers have no opportunity to consent to intrusive tracking.

"The secrecy around data purchases was amplified because intelligence agencies have sought to keep the American people in the dark," Wyden told Haines.
 

ORDER_66

The Fire Rises 2023
Bushed
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
146,218
Reputation
15,772
Daps
583,918
Reppin
Queens,NY
:beli::beli::beli: and wasnt these same folks wanting to ban tiktok for allegedly doing the same thing?!!? but i guess it's ok when the US govt does it...
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,804
Reputation
7,926
Daps
148,678

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.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,804
Reputation
7,926
Daps
148,678

omnifax

All Star
Supporter
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,387
Reputation
920
Daps
9,218
Reppin
Kalamazoo, MI #ADOS
I told y'all Israel losing the hasbara propaganda war is the reason behind the ban but some coli brehs wanna be obtuse



Now you hear it from the horses mouth


Man I saw that this morning and was somewhat shocked they would say it in the open like that. To me though this is a clear indication that the U.S. is not going to stop supporting Israel over this genocide.
 

Jalether

Superstar
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
10,126
Reputation
1,657
Daps
36,704
Man I saw that this morning and was somewhat shocked they would say it in the open like that. To me though this is a clear indication that the U.S. is not going to stop supporting Israel over this genocide.
the way they have used the states muscle/power to crack down on American student protesting the genocide is another clear indication. Biden is backing Israel full tilt even at the expense of losing the election
 
Last edited:
Top