• AmbiguousProps
    link
    fedilink
    English
    176
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I posted this in the other thread, but…

    Now congress can tell any company to get fucked and sell to the highest bidder (edit: via bills crafted to target them specifically)? So much for free market republicans.

    China will just find another company to buy our data from, because as it turns out, the problem isn’t just TikTok, it’s the fact the it’s legal for companies (foreign and domestic) to sell and exchange our data in the first place. TikTok will still collect the same data, and instead of it going straight to China, it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

    And if the problem is the fact that it’s addictive, well, we have plenty of our own home grown addictions for people to sink their time into. You don’t see congress telling those companies to get sold to a new owner.

    • @bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      808 months ago

      it’ll go to a rich white fuck first and they’ll be the ones to sell it to China instead.

      And that’s really what most politicians care about. Meta and Co. are butthurt that the new dopamine dealer on the block is cutting so ruthlessly into their numbers, especially among the younger generations. Normally, Meta et. al. would just engage in their typical antitrust behavior and buy them out, but they can’t because a) ByteDance doesn’t need them or their money and b) I’d be surprised if China let them sell such a valuable tool willingly.

      This is just protectionism under the guise of national security, plain and simple. We’ve heard, “oh but national security!!!” countless times before, and if this was truly the main concern, they’d be going after all the other blatantly egregious privacy snoopers as well.

    • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      408 months ago

      Incorrect, the Bill is broad but it’s not any company for any reason.

      The “PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024” has this to say:

      (a) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, provide access to, or otherwise make available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to—
      
      (1) any foreign adversary country; or
      
      (2) any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.
      
      (b) Enforcement By Federal Trade Commission.—
      
      (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
      
      (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—
      
      (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
      
      (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any person who violates this section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
      
      (3) AUTHORITY PRESERVED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
      

      and then like a bunch of pages of hyper-specific definitions for the above terms.

      • Blxter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        318 months ago

        Am I misunderstanding something this actually sounds like a positive thing. Although I wish it was not just for “foreign adversary country; or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” And instead just in general

          • @p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            But muh silly dancing app!!1one

            Hot take: people are pretending this is a gross censorship violation only because they’re addicted to the app and it might be going away, leaving them with nothing to scroll on endlessly into the day

            • @PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -18 months ago

              No, some of them are pretending it’s gross censorship only because Amerikkka Bad and Biden Bad and CCP Good.

              My favorite was “China sowing chaos is Good, Actually”

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          I’ve been pretty optimistic about it from the start so I might be pretty biased, but it is very vague on what exactly the FTC can do to the companies in violation. If anything, it creates precedent for protecting Americans from corporate interests, so hopefully more to come in the future.

          Some things were excluded from my comment such as the 60 day limitation being listed after the definitions, and the definitions are quite long so there could be some important facets in there that I have missed.

        • @TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -38 months ago

          That’s kinda the point though. They don’t give a shit about protecting our data. They’ve willingly engaged in the data trading markets themselves. It’s greatly enhanced their power. They’ve protected the practice by simple virtue of dumping fuck tons of money into it. But as soon as other players get into the game…”quick, to the gavel-mobile!”

          This bill isn’t for us. It’s for them. I’m no fan of china—it’s an authoritarian state that forcefully exerts control over its people—but to the US, they’re just the next game in town. Because while china may be a little more overtly controlling, the US is in the same game. They just use the frontman of their independent corporations to more subtly exert influence. But when we start trying to wrest some control back? Sure, that’s when the gavels turn to batons and guns.

          So, in short, they’re not protecting us. They’re protecting themselves and their established order. Cracks are starting to show because people on the whole seem to be realizing this order doesn’t work for us, but for them. They will start to more overtly flex their power as this trend continues.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -38 months ago

        The big point is, how does that power get used?

        There is no due process. So someone like Trump could just declare a company to be a foreign adversary. If this was like an Anti-Trust case that had to be built and proven in court we wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it’s not. You’re just literally declaring it, no evidence required.

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          If ByteDance continues sending the outlined Data to any offshore location defined as an adversarial nation, then:

          So, this is an FTC Enforcement. Since you clearly have no idea what that means, the chairmen of the FTC vote on the specifics of the enforcement and then unless the company accepts the terms it almost certainly becomes contested in the courts where lawyers explain to the judge that they think this is or is not constitutional and lawful action by the FTC to which the judge gives their opinion, and then appeals courts can send the decision to other courts some of which may rule on the case voluntarily such as the SCOTUS (although that is quite rare).

          EXAMPLE: Over their handling of data and disruption of local elections the FTC fined Facebook 5Bn USD on July 12, 2019. Facebook will be making installment payments for over a decade. This was a historic record fine, up from the previous highest being 168 Million USD in 2017 against Dish Network.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -28 months ago

            The company having to appeal in court is not due process. It’s not due process if you break a law and it’s not due process if they break a law. If you think the FTC making a declaration is due process then remember Ajit Pai and net neutrality. The rulings of those agencies can swing wildly between administrations. So right now it’s ByteDance. But in the cursed world where the GOP gets this power it’s whatever organization they don’t like. Ever wonder if this could be used against a Union? They’ve wondered. And without a need for real evidence, (citing secret intelligence reports is also precedent), they don’t even need to get an infiltrator into the Union’s administration.

            The courts are not the constitutional safety valve you want them to be. They’ve proven that time and time again. Rights require the people themselves to defend them. If you’re in any doubt of that check out the difference between how we treat the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment. And then realize SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t soldiers because words (police didn’t exist in 1792), and as such the 3rd amendment is a dead letter.

            As to your example, The FTC had to have the DOJ file charges in court. So even in the example you found, they are using due process. This power is new, overly broad, and unconstitutional.

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -2
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Not after the fact. They are due process when the government has to prove it’s case before it can take punitive action. If the government is allowed to take punitive action without going to court to prove it’s needed than there is no due process.

                Why is that so hard to understand?

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -168 months ago

        Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.

            • @grrgyle@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Not American, but that doesn’t sound right… whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?

              I can see why you shouldn’t name an actual person, though.

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer’s rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporation’s right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.

          • AmbiguousProps
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -5
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific (rather confusingly, I admit, since you used it too) to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.

            to prevent anything similar from ever occurring

            What are you referring to here? What occurred? Do you mean the creation of another foreign TikTok?

        • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -18 months ago

          According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that’s okay because we voted for them.

    • @WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      China made American companies partner and share their IP with Chinese companies to access the Chinese market when the Chinese market was opened to outsiders back in the 90s. That’s how China caught up to us in technology, they straight up stole the IP and changed terms on the American companies. I believe there is some tit for tat happening here. China has done a lot of fucked up shit and they are definitely actively hacking American infrastructure and social engineering against American interests. They are harvesting American data and tweaking the algorithm to actively undermine American interests. Whether you agree or disagree, China started this fight. China has banned most American social media already.

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 months ago

        China doesn’t need TikTok to do any of that, including the data collection. They can just get it from data brokers (either by purchasing or stealing it). Because guess what? Data collection and/or sale of said data to foreign countries wasn’t made illegal with this bill.

        • @WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Reading the bill further - it does mention the banning of the sale of American’s data to foreign adversaries enforceable by the FCC. That language does sound like a ban on data brokers selling to China too. It will be difficult to enforce with shell corporations and non-adversary country’s corporations who may partner with Chinese companies, but the language seems to be there. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

          • @Kalysta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            Foreign adversaries. What’s to stop them from selling to an ally and the ally re-selling that data?

            If they’re this concerned they need to ban data brokers in general. And enforce those bans.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -18 months ago

            That was already a law. Facebook is being sued for it right now by the government after getting caught doing it multiple times over the last 15ish years.

        • @WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I agree privacy bills need to be passed. 100%. One of the main reasons I am typing this here instead of Reddit. I’m just pointing out this is far from just an unprovoked action for profit. There isn’t enough talk in this debate about the host of messed up shit being done to America by China (and Russia) in the digital space. Cyber attacks are at all time high. It sucks Tik tok is getting banned, but privacy laws aren’t also being rolled out. It’s also true that China is indeed using Tiktok’s data maliciously. Both things can be true. My statement was to point out it’s not JUST a cash grab by social media companies, China is also a real threat and that shouldn’t be overlooked. I work for an ISP so I see the threat day in day out.

          • AmbiguousProps
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            It’s not really a ban though, it’s a forced sale. Cyber attacks come from more than just China, and there are more companies selling data to China than just TikTok. I also see (and protect against) cyber attacks every day at my job.

            • @WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I thought the forced sale was trying to get it to be able to stay around because a ban was so unpopular while accomplishing the same goal of breaking China’s access to the algorithm and collected data. They tried the Oracle housing but Byte Dance kept giving access to engineers with ties to the CCP. Either way, I just get an overall vibe in this debate that people aren’t considering China a big threat and I think that’s a mistake. Not saying you specifically but the discourse that I have read across many posts.

              • AmbiguousProps
                link
                fedilink
                English
                28 months ago

                I mean, you are correct that a complete ban is unpopular. But I don’t think that’s the exclusive reason the forced sale was provided as an option. TikTok (and the data on it) is super valuable. Someone will most likely buy it, and the data collection and foreign sale (or theft) will continue.

                China is a threat, and so are the data brokers. This benefits US-based data brokers, but does it really benefit the individual citizen? I personally don’t think so, at least not from a data collection and personal privacy perspective.

                • @WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  No doubt the sale would monetarily benefit someone and I’m sure lobbyist pushed it, but since Byte Dance didn’t comply with the original work around, I don’t see a much better solution to remove the CCP’s influence on Byte Dance and the app. It’s definitely not as black and white as much of the discourse I’ve seen. I appreciate discussing it with you and I see many of your points. Data brokers are indeed out of control. I hope the language in the bill banning data brokers from selling to foreign adversaries is somehow helpful in getting the ball rolling on deeper limits to data mining. Precedents being set to limit them could be a good first step.

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                08 months ago

                Keeps? I’ve seen one documented instance and it’s literally a headcount for engagement hacking.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        A. Creating laws that let us act like an authoritarian regime is not a good thing.

        B. They didn’t need to do any of that with TikTok. Late stage capitalism is radicalizing people every day. All they need to do is get out of the way of them finding each other.

    • @PhAzE@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      208 months ago

      The problem isn’t actually just that China takes our data, it’s that they control the algorithm on tiktok for what users see, thereby giving them the ability to manipulate the public.

        • @TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Would you rather a hostile foreign entity do it instead, who have vested interest in sewing destructive chaos as a goal, though? That’s the alternative.

            • Jimmybander
              link
              fedilink
              English
              18 months ago

              That’s just too vague to legislate. Stop talking to everyone because you’re being manipulated non-stop by everyone you know.

          • @Kalysta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            38 months ago

            We don’t need a “hostile foreign entity”. Trump is doing that just fine all on his own.

          • @explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -18 months ago

            Since we’re not denying that white oligarchs do it too, then giving consumers a choice as to which manipulated information they see is better than having just our goverment decide. Sowing chaos isn’t inherently bad - law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

      • GodlessCommie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        158 months ago

        The US is terrified of the public becoming anti capitalist and anti colonialism which is what’s happening. THEY want control of the narrative like they’ve had for decades so they can control the message.

        • @PhAzE@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          68 months ago

          Can’t blame them. Late stage capitalism is causing a lot of people a lot of pain while a few get super rich from it.

        • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          68 months ago

          Then they completely missed the cause and effect. China didn’t need to do anything. We’re radicalizing people every day with economic gaslighting, medical debt, school debt, housing costs, and grocery costs.

    • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      118 months ago

      The important thing is that it lives on American servers first, where the FBI and NSA can get at it.

      If it lives on Chinese servers, the CIA have to get involved.

    • @kiagam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      You are missing the point. If somebody is gonna profit in any way from US citizens, the US oligarchs want their cut. If it was about controlling information, it would specifically mention about that and what is to be done about it. Making the company be US controlled increases the reach of government on it, yes, but it doesn’t gaurantee or enforce it in any way. The thing it gaurantees is where the money will end up.

    • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      By the last few days all the trolls stopped even trying to argue this and just went to, “my congressional rep said it’s a national security issue! And that abrogates the entire Constitution!”

      As usual, when rights are being stripped it’s for the protection of the children.

    • @Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28 months ago

      If you have an Amazon account, China already has all your info. This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.

      I hope this is challenged in court.

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 months ago

        This it congress trying to silence pro-palestine protesters and biden mad that TikTok doesn’t like him.

        it’s definitely not just this, they’re mad that one of the biggest social media companies isn’t US based, and that they don’t have full jurisdiction over them.

        • @thatirishguyyy@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          This is closer to the facts. The US government just doesn’t want any other government having our info. They called dibs.

          Another issue is the algorithm they use. China can literally control what we see.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            and the problem with the algorithm is that the US doesn’t have jurisdiction over it.

            The problem with the data is that we don’t have US jurisdiction over it (even though technically oracle hosts the US tiktok servers)

            Idk man, seems like they’re mad about not having jurisdiction over our data if you’re asking me. They’re fine having other countries data, just not other countries having our data.