Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 430 posts

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#411

Post by computerfriend »

est wrote: post #410
computerfriend wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my only point is "[LinkedIn] works 100% well in China" is factually false.

If you want facts, linkedin.com still gets redirect to linkedin.cn(aka lingying.com) as of today here's the output of curl -sv https://linkedin.com > /dev/null * Trying 2620:1ec:21::14... * TCP_NODELAY set * Connected to linkedin.com (2620:1ec:21::14) port 443 (#0) https://www.linkedin.cn/incareer/hp/ The bottom of the page says: ICP Filing Number: 14023203 ICP License Number: 150024 PSB Filing Number: 11030102010420…

Interesting that it connects (and sad that MS is doing IP-based redirects). I asked a friend in Shanghai and she said it didn't load, but don't think I can ask her to troubleshoot.

> So what's your argument this time?

Your past couple of comments have been weirdly aggressive. I don't have an agenda.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#412

Post by est »

computerfriend wrote: post #411
est wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want facts, linkedin.com still gets redirect to linkedin.cn(aka lingying.com) as of today here's the output of curl -sv https://linkedin.com > /dev/null * Trying 2620:1ec:21::14... * TCP_NODELAY set * Connected to linkedin.com (2620:1ec:21::14) port 443 (#0) https://www.linkedin.cn/incareer/hp/ The bottom of the page says: ICP Filing Number: 14023203 ICP License Number: 150024 PSB Filing Number: 11030102010420…

Interesting that it connects (and sad that MS is doing IP-based redirects). I asked a friend in Shanghai and she said it didn't load, but don't think I can ask her to troubleshoot. > So what's your argument this time? Your past couple of comments have been weirdly aggressive. I don't have an agenda.

> she said it didn't load

Networks in China are crappy in general, if your friend has some bad VPN setup I can assure it will mess up something like DNS? Or even worse, if she is using the App, the Linkedin.cn would likely to break API stuff with forced redirects (that's why I call it abomination)

> been weirdly aggressive

Because something WRONG is on the Internet? LOL. IDK man. https://xkcd.com/386/ I hate "tech jornalism" like the BBC one because most of them are bad. In this Linkedin case it was sophistecated enough that people can get inaccurate conclusions based on problems on the surface. But for HN audience I hope people would verify by themselves more.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#413

Post by samatman »

unity1001 wrote: post #385
samatman wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a sharp difference between preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever they would like, and allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's liberty while denying it to their subjects. So, no, that is not my response at all. There is no technology involved in kicking these corporations out of the civilized world, just political will.

> out of the civilized world Which civilized world.

The.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#414

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

texaslonghorn5 wrote: post #399
vorpalhex wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you are comparing the active sterilization of Muslims in camps to.. healthcare being less available in rural indigeonous areas?

I don't follow. I was responding to > If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it. it seemed to imply that the native american genocide was over. maybe not, I probably missed context earlier up thread. I was disagreeing with that statement. yes of course I agree that the active sterilization / genocide / cleansing of Uighur Muslims in China exists and is a human righ…

The claims of sterilization, genocide and cleansing are largely propaganda.

This propaganda takes a kernel of truth (China began enforcing the 3-child policy on Uyghurs, who were previously exempt - the policy previously only applied to the Han majority), and distorts it beyond all recognition (China is sterilizing all the Uyghurs).

Given the public's utter lack of knowledge about China in the US and Europe, it's easy to sell this sort propaganda.

It would be so much easier to discuss the actual issues (such as China's harsh crackdown on separatism in Xinjiang) if the US government were not so shamelessly distorting them for political reasons. One almost finds oneself having to defend the Chinese government, because the US government has so little compunction about pushing big lies like the "Uyghur genocide." China did use heavy police measures and political indoctrination to go after people it suspects of supporting separatism. No, it's not trying to wipe out the Uyghurs (or to do anything even remotely like that).

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#416

Post by computerfriend »

not1ofU wrote: post #415
computerfriend wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really reverse, since the US didn't participate in the first one.

Oh, I didnt realise Tik Tok was US only.

Well funnily enough the only place where it's not is Hong Kong.

But to the opium war analogy, most of the world was not involved.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#417

Post by archagon »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #160
pjc50 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sigh can we not have targeted-by-nationality bans and instead have .. rules? If Tiktok the app is performing surveillance, ban surveillance by apps . All of them. Or make it technically impossible to escape its little sandbox, and let people have their entertainment.

Rules are great but rules are not always great. Sometimes the particularities of a situation are more important than the system of rules itself . There is a reason law becomes more like, a guideline in war.

We are not at war.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#418

Post by archagon »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #313
clashmoore wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm an American who uses TikTok for entertainment. I don't think it's utterly ridiculous to allow TikTok to continue. Even hearing these threats that China is possibly surveilling me - what do they get that other social media apps like Instagram get from me? From the FBI it sounds like the national security threat is that China may use it alter my feed to influence me or take over the control of my Apple phone? Ha…

Reposting from another comment [0], but there are at least three reasons you should be concerned what happens with your TikTok data: 1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy, educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-inducing content in US and foreign markets (already happening [1]). 2. Train AI that can be used for analyzing and further m…

Gee, that kind of sounds like we should ban advertising and tracking in general.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#419

Post by archagon »

mizzao wrote: post #330
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The local regulation is to parter with a Chinese company to operate the service. Giving that company a substantial percentage of revenue.

And the ability to steal a substantial amount of your IP and start a copycat across the street.

Good. IP should not be a thing anyway.

Re: The FBI alleges TikTok poses national security concerns

#420

Post by cscurmudgeon »

conductr wrote: post #374
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Downloading and using TikTok is a personal choice and you’ve allowed it by doing so as an individual. Not if it interferes with security of the country. The same personal choice argument is what folks use to justify other choices that are bad (refusing well test vaccines, not paying taxes, etc.)

I view it more like a vice (smoking, gambling, etc) and as mentioned we need an actual thoughtful policy if we think it’s a security issue. Banning one app at a time is not the way.

Almost vices are regulated.

> Banning one app at a time is not the way.

True, let us ban *all* apps from countries that (1) ban US apps and (2) seek to influence US citizens.

Post reply on HN