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

FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

blog.malwarebytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 899 posts

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#801

Post by _-david-_ »

FpUser wrote: post #714
_-david-_ wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When there are multiple major players conflicts between them often occur.

Replying here since reply to your last post is not available. >"Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?" I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone. >"I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just." Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?

>Replying here since reply to your last post is not available.

Typically when that happens I have to click the time posted on a post and then I have the option to reply. Not sure what causes that.

>I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone.

I don't think that is possible.

Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time when there were multiple major powers but they were so far away they couldn't reach the other, assuming they even knew the other existed.

If you do not have any examples of this occurring, why do you think it would work in the present?

>Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?

I am not suggesting that the US has only done good and just things. Only that the US is better than China.

China is currently taking over Hong Kong (despite having a 50 year agreement for autonomy starting in 1997), attempting to take land from India, trying to dam a river that provides water to India, is consistently threatening Taiwan, etc. China does the same crap. And all of that is within the last few years. If you want to go back further we can.

I would also note several of the US invasions were not in fact US invasion but NATO invasions. This likely means one of those blocks of country you support to be a world power were involved with these invasions.

Let's talk about internal affairs. China has a terrible record and potentially holds the record for causing the most deaths of its own citizens. Obviously they don't care about the people. What about freedom? Do Chinese citizens have more freedom than US citizens? Why would China treat people who are not its own citizens better than the citizens?

The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#802

Post by trasz »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #505
trasz wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]. US claims that’s true, but everyone who remembers Iraq knows US loves a good lie. China, on the other hand, explicitly declares they won’t invade. China also doesn’t have much to gain by invading, and everything to lose.

Could you point us to China saying that? AFAIK China's policy is precisely the opposite: they've repeatedly made it very clear they will use military force if Taiwan ever proclaims independence.

No - they made it clear that they will use military force if US invades Taiwan. They also made it very clear that they want peaceful solution, because their economy doesn’t depend on waging wars.

Feel free to prove otherwise; note that Chinese statements are quite often misquoted.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#803

Post by yucky »

Xeoncross wrote: post #757
yucky wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese government can't do anything to me though, while the US government can... So who should I fear more?

Both, but protect the most vulnerable first Speak up for those who can't

Saying I should fear both is like saying I should fear dying in a car accident and being mauled by kangaroos.

The Chinese Government can't do anything to me unless I go there. Meanwhile my own government here presents an ever-present real life danger on multiple fronts. I still don't exactly fear it, but at least I know which is more likely to do me harm. Or for that matter, to do harm to others with my tax dollars.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#804

Post by okamiueru »

NoGravitas wrote: post #749
okamiueru wrote: post #148

My concern seems to be different than that of most expressed here. Companies collecting too much information is a problem, sure, but that's not what deeply worries me when it comes to social media generating/consuming platforms like Facebook, TikTok and YouTube. Especially those that algorithmically decide what to show users. Foreign countries controlling what information a coming generation is exposed to is IMO much…

Why do you care so strongly about the nationality of the boot on your neck, rather than that the boot is there at all?

I wouldn't really say that the nationality is all that important. Just what my prejudices say. CCP tend to stifle opinions they dislike. Russia tends to fund divisiveness in the west. Facebook and US companies in general do whatever makes them money entirely devoid of any moral compass. Google sometimes can be gamed due to either carelessness or ineptitude. In any case, and as mentioned, mostly prejudice, is the answer to your question.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#805

Post by moralestapia »

staticassertion wrote: post #775
moralestapia wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the data exists 99% of the work is already done though. It is extremely easy for a government to infiltrate into these organizations and get their hands on it, it has happened at Twitter [1], for instance. So, yes, the problem IS data collection in the first place. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-twit...

It doesn't have to be extremely easy, and it isn't extremely easy at every company. Twitter's security was bad, worse than it should have been for their size/ data footprint. I do agree that data collection is at the core of the problem, but Twitter really should have done a better job.

Read the article,

No amount of "security" is enough for an actor who wants to do this and has privileged to the data. This is almost impossible to out-engineer, if you think a company like Twitter cannot solve "such an easy problem" you're being naive.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#806

Post by ChrisLomont »

coliveira wrote: post #797
ChrisLomont wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People don't seem to understand that median is not a measure that is much better than mean, especially in the case of high inequality. Yes, they do. I am a PhD mathematician with decades of work using these tools. I am quite clear on the meanings and shortcoming of all sorts of indicators. I am also aware how real world data trends instead of cooked up examples that don't match reality. Median is a common value used…

The two examples show exactly the problem of the median: it is not that different from the mean in many situation when we talk about salaries and incomes. Now, if you start using the percentiles as you're doing here, then you are looking deeper into the data and your results get more accurate and reflective of reality, which just proves my point.

>The two examples show exactly the problem of the median: it is not that different from the mean in many situation when we talk about salaries and incomes

???

Did you compute them? do you know how?

The Brazil data I just posted has median around 1383, mean of 2308.36, which is 65% larger.

An interesting test: compute with details the median and mean of the data I just posted. I already gave you the answers. I think you don't understand these terms.

That you don't like the outcome of the most two commonly used indicators is not the fault of the indicators - it's the result of you wanting to put things in the data that are not there.

Your claim about Brazil having "hardly anyone", which I showed was nonsense, shows exactly what you're trying to do - put things in data that simply are not there (and in the case of your claim, are mathematically invalid no matter the income distribution).

>Now, if you start using the percentiles as you're doing here, then you are looking deeper into the data

Percentiles have the exact same graph as dollars, or pesos, or anything you desire.

% = exact$ / total $.

So they have the exact same graph, merely a different label. Do you understand this? The % of total income versus income shows nothing different, there is no "deeper into the data" or "more accurate and reflective of reality" for this.

It's simply scaling ALL the numbers by a constant. No one changes place. No income compared to another changes in ratio. There is no subtle nuance pulled out of anywhere.

>which just proves my point.

Is your point that you don't know what any of these terms mean? Then yes, you proved your point. Mean, median, percent, ratio, decile, all the terms related to income - you have screwed them all up beyond reason.

Don't bother replying until you answer the questions I poste last time:

Do you admit 50% of people in Brazil make median income or more? What amount of people did you mean by "hardly anyone"?

Also answer: is the graph of income by % the same geometric shape as income by $, or yen, or peso, or any currency you care to pick, thereby giving no "looking deeper into the data"?

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#807

Post by jfengel »

zaroth wrote: post #795
jfengel wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any meaningful way to talk about that hypothetical. Much of what Trump says is chosen specifically to enrage people, and Democrats in particular. Even if he chose to support, say, universal health care, it would be buried in so much deliberate harassment that there would be no way to arrive at a workable plan. The suggestion is so counterfactual that I just can't address it one way or the other. He achiev…

Perhaps the real world example of this is the price transparency laws that Trump pushed through. Whether democrats were staunchly against it, I don’t actually recall.

Democrats were all for it. California has had a similar rule since 2004. Biden has been pushing hospitals to implement it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/12/health-20...

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#808

Post by sudosysgen »

jmyeet wrote: post #786
sudosysgen wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has no rule of law for national security consideration in other countries. As a non US citizen the US government in practice has no due process consideration if they wish to spy on you, torture you, or kill you. Corporations are an extension of the state in this process, as we have learned thanks to Edward Snowden. They have no choice but to facilitate the use of state power on foreign nationals. As a non-Amer…

> As a non US citizen the US government in practice has no due process consideration if they wish to spy on you, torture you, or kill you. Spy? Sort of. Generally speaking, US intelligence agencies have a lot of leeway when 1) you're not a US citizen AND 2) you're not on US soil. If either of those things isn't true then it's a different story. There are workarounds (eg outsourcing spying to allies). Torture and kill…

> Torture and kill? Huh? I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Do you mean in a war zone?

Extraordinary rendition, "targeted killings", enhanced interrogation. The US often kills non US citizens on foreign soil without any due diligence.

> What I will say is that given the choice between living in China and being subject to Chinese spying and living in the US subject to US spying I'll pick the US hands down every time.

That's a nonsensical fallacy of choice. No one here is talking about emigration to China. We are talking about banning TikTok. The choice is between being spied on by foreign companies or by domestic companies. The correct answer is of course neither, and trying to say that being spied on by the US government is better than the Chinese government is nonsensical - if you aren't American or Chinese they are basically the same, and if you are American your own government is the only one that can opress you.

> And the US has no equivalent to Hong Kong's "security" laws.

Of course it does, it has the same standards whenever the US wants to occupy some country.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#809

Post by roberttod »

roenxi wrote: post #262
roberttod wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first argument sounds like appeasement, didn't work so well in WW2. Sounds like burying your head in the sand hoping no one will do anything bad. I think the parent post means top dog in military and power sense, not welfare of citizens which is all well and good until another nation is trying to undermine your core values. > Your successor will be judged by the standard you set What successor are we thinking of…

The story of appeasement was basically that the Nazis kept invading places, country after country, until they tried to take on the USSR and got transformed into paste (the US getting involved being a major factor). It was really quite breathtaking in hindsight because they wouldn't stop and obviously didn't intend to stop, ever. gp's argument has no parallel to appeasement.

> treating countries as though they are enemies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can increase the threat rather than decrease it.

That's what I was referring to. Not appeasement exactly but seems like similar logic.

Re: FCC: TikTok is unacceptable security risk and should be removed from app stores

#810

Post by trasz »

arroz wrote: post #525
trasz wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]. US claims that’s true, but everyone who remembers Iraq knows US loves a good lie. China, on the other hand, explicitly declares they won’t invade. China also doesn’t have much to gain by invading, and everything to lose.

sorry but you sound like a wumao

And you don’t find it weird that any argument that doesn’t match current US policy looks wumao to you?
Post reply on HN