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

Why we are suing the Administration

newsroom.tiktok.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 486 posts

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#171

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ryosuke wrote: post #117
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. What kind of myopic fucking nonsense is this? Hsvd you not even heard of the Cold War ?

I didn't know we had apps back in the days of the Cold War.

Don't be naive, you know what I'm talking about.

Do you think the USA and it's allies allowed Soviet companies to run amok during the Cold War?

What we're watching unfold now is way more complicated, and will be way more protracted, than the Cold War was.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#172

Post by Canada »

abc-xyz wrote: post #120
Canada wrote: post #101

This is retaliation for China's unfair practices. It's not about propaganda, what videos are allowed or disallowed, or who might see which videos you watch. It's about the fact that valuable US tech companies aren't allowed to compete in China. If they were the trade deficit wouldn't nearly as bad. Now the Trump administration is hitting back. This is plainly and simply: Screw you, we're going to take something succe…

> ByteDance has had a party committee since 2017 and is headed by CCP secretary and company editor-in-chief Zhang Fuping (張輔評), reported Human Rights Watch. Members of the committee hold regular gatherings at which they study speeches by Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) and "pledge to follow the party in technological innovation." > In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement w…

Those are good points, especially the second one. I still speculate that the motive is more trade than security however.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#173

Post by kodablah »

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

> I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship

"I think the 'free' world should ban software and/or content". Condemn maybe, but it is scary to see such non-free actions encouraged against digital content.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#174

Post by dahfizz »

throwawayinfo wrote: post #132
Tarq0n wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely an element of this at play. This was stated pretty explicitly in the case of Grindr, a dating app for gay men. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/grindr-china-...

Eh... in some parts of the US there is still a stigma against being LGBT. Grindr being foreign owned means opening up the possibility of people (who aren't ready to come out) being blackmailed. And that's clearly a national security threat and different from wanting data profiles on everyone.

> that's clearly a national security threat and different from wanting data profiles on everyone.

What's the threat model here? Certainly ousting LGBT people is scummy, but I'm not sure I understand how it jeopardizes the security of the nation.

You could argue that the ability to blackmail government officials compromises national security, but lots of things in that "data profile" could be used for blackmail. I don't see a reason to break this issue out separately.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#175

Post by mcny »

fvv wrote: post #147

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…

> here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free

Expel Spain from the EU. Economic blockade. Whatever it takes. At least the UK held a referendum on Scotland. Fake promises and all but we can't jail dissidents just because they try to form a separate country in today's world.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#176

Post by kevin_b_er »

bootloop wrote: post #7

Why is the US always focusing on individual companies instead of working on laws to protect them from all companies invading the privacy of their citizens? Banning one player isn't going to help much in the long run I would think. Edit: I am an EU citizen if it matters.

Paralyzed legislature is why there's no laws.

And it isn't about privacy of the citizenry. Its about sticking it to China. The US executive hasn't and doesn't care about what happens to the citizens, just about reelection.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#177

Post by gostsamo »

oblio wrote: post #159
gostsamo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issue is that in the EU the states have too much power that they don't want to let go. Currently, each country can block any EU-wide legislation on the main topics and the minor need two thirds approval.* * Actually 55% of the countries, but they must have 65% of the population which means that France and Germany are enough to block everything proposed by all the others even they all get together.

France and Germany are not 65% of the EU population, not even after Brexit. More like 33%.

My argument is that they together are big enough to stop any other legislation.

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#178

Post by badRNG »

ArchD wrote: post #116
badRNG wrote: post #28

Regardless of what you think about TikTok, the banning of an app in the interest of "national security" is largely unprecedented. The jump from banning Huawei from building critical public infrastructure to banning an app that hasn't even conclusively been proven to behave in any uniquely dangerous ways seems to be an intense, unjustified escalation of this conflict. [1] You may disagree with me on the strict securit…

Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow? Chinese companies have to obey the CPC's orders that infringe users' privacy. Whether or not it is right for a country's government to spy on its citizens, the current ar…

>Are you saying that CPC gets to ban Google, Facebook, Twitter & a ton of other non-Chinese online companies but the US government does not get to ban Chinese online companies, even in the name of fairness both in terms of trade and information flow?

Yes I am.

My concerns center the precedent of banning software. If banning software to further the interests of national security is established as a precedent, it is reasonable to assume this will be weaponized against end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like Signal. This would erode a strong, hard fought for precedent that code is speech. The Bernstein v. Department of Justice decision ended Export Control of encryption on the basis of software as speech. [1] Courts affirmed this right again in a ruling against a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, as it infringed on the speech of video game companies. [2]

Since you brought up China's policies, they also happen to ban end-to-end encrypted apps as there is a strong precedent for doing so in the interests of national security. [3] These simply aren't policies worth emulating.

[1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-40

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1448.ZS.html

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/china-whatsapp-b...

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#179

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

Udik wrote: post #167
dade_ wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how someone can be on HN for 6 years and not already know this. Look up Five Eyes.

Five Eyes includes US, CA, UK, NZ and AU. Does it mean that German or French social networks are not allowed in the US? Conversely, should Italy or Russia ban US social networks? There are no absolute friends and absolute enemies. China was a good commercial partner of the US until a few years ago. Italy has been spied for decades by the CIA. The US wiretapped Germany's PM. Israel was caught installing spy mobile pho…

Fourteen Eyes

Re: Why we are suing the Administration

#180

Post by kevin_b_er »

oblio wrote: post #159
gostsamo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issue is that in the EU the states have too much power that they don't want to let go. Currently, each country can block any EU-wide legislation on the main topics and the minor need two thirds approval.* * Actually 55% of the countries, but they must have 65% of the population which means that France and Germany are enough to block everything proposed by all the others even they all get together.

France and Germany are not 65% of the EU population, not even after Brexit. More like 33%.

You're backwards. The topic is talking about how 65% of population is required to pass. If France and Germany have 33%, as you say, then every single other country combined is 67%. They would then have enough population to block legislation together in most cases
Post reply on HN