TikTok to challenge U.S. order banning transactions with the video app

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-trump-exclusive/exclusive-tiktok-to-challenge-u-s-order-banning-transactions-with-the-video-app-idUSKBN25H2QG

by pseudolus • 6 years ago

76 130 6 years ago

reuters.com

wombatmobile3• 6 years ago

How would Americans be better off with TikTok in Microsoft's hands?

THE MICROSOFT POLICE STATE: MASS SURVEILLANCE, FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND THE AZURE CLOUD https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/microsoft-police-state-m...

spsful• 6 years ago

I'm not sure if Americans are better off, but the sale is certainly for political reasons. It's inherently about a fear of the Chinese government data-mining with millions of American citizens; if an American entity is doing it, they probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

tick_tock_tick• 6 years ago

How wouldn't it? Your link just seems to indicate we shouldn't allow China to have this kind of data.

wombatmobile3• 6 years ago

Your link just seems to indicate we shouldn't allow China to have this kind of data.

How do you get that from the article? The only mention of China in the article is the photo caption "Microsoft’s MAPP patrol vehicle in Durban sports a facial recognition camera from China-based Hikvision."

bassman90005• 6 years ago

Because you can take MS to court for mishandling US citizens data, in the US, in a way that you can't take ByteDance, for the same reason, in China.

Not defending MS. Just stating the obvious with ByteDance.

kube-system6• 6 years ago

The US government’s concern with ByteDance is, and always has been, a question of national security, not privacy.

But for that matter, privacy laws are stronger in the US too.

monadic22• 6 years ago

Privacy is a national security issue. Actively monitoring citizens, privately and publicly, and smearing the data across the US and the rest of the world is going to prove to be a massive national vulnerability in the long run.

wavesounds• 6 years ago

American companies are blocked from doing business in China either by the great firewall, having to transfer intellectual property, having to give the government unfettered access to user data or by having to have Chinese ownership. Bytedance has no legs to stand on here.

mdoms• 6 years ago

Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?

justicezyx4• 6 years ago

Additionally, TikTok represents major US and international interests through its users and investors.

I doubt the app would continue to be successful without the original creative minds behind it.

JumpCrisscross6• 6 years ago

Do you think America becoming more like China is a desirable outcome?

Last I checked, American companies can’t challenge Beijing in court the way Tik Tok is here.

khuey5• 6 years ago

I think the specific ways Trump is going about it (targeting individual companies, and the insane bit about the treasury deserving a I-bankers commission) are awful but I also think that taking zero action towards reciprocal market access because "we don't want to become more like China" is also a fool's game.

ponker• 6 years ago

Bob slaps Steve in the face repeatedly. Steve stands with his hands by his side. Finally right as he starts to defend himself Jason sees him raising his arms and gasps “Steve! For shame! Do you want to be more like Bob?! Put your arms down where they belong!”

(Nothing about retaliating against China has anything to do with TikTok’s “ban” which is just a paroxysm from a deranged moron)

rasz• 6 years ago

America becoming more like China when dealing with China is by all means a desirable outcome!

gruez• 6 years ago

I would have a problem if it involved america devolving to china's level, making life worse for its citizens (eg. surveillance, censorship). However, I don't have any problems with america engaging in tit-for-tat exchange against china.

typ• 6 years ago

When you respond to the guys who follow nasty strategies with niceness, you are literally rewarding the bad behaviors. If being cooperative wouldn't get much differences than being exploitative, then the nice guys will vanish and only the bad guys will remain. A reciprocal strategy is necessary and beneficial long-term for the world IMO.

The well-known book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins has an interesting chapter titled Nice Guys Finish First giving a good illustration relevant to this idea.

justicezyx4• 6 years ago

We are talking about TikTok here.

Please do not intentionally mix 2 entities. There is law forced upon TikTok to abide by US law (or any local laws where TikTok operates).

Protecting TikTok is fighting the abuses forced onto the US and other international corps by CCP and the Chinese government.

chrischen3• 6 years ago

We force other countries as well, such as the inane war on drugs. We threaten to sanction countries that legalize drugs. It’s projection of power 101.

China’s no saint but the level you have been brainwashed to think America is such the great protector of democracy and freedom is typical global-unaware American ignorance.

vkou2• 6 years ago

Your information is a decade out of date. American brands, franchises, and products, from iPhones, to Starbucks, to McDonalds, to Teslas are everywhere in China.

Oh, and China is Facebook's second largest market (Despite the app itself being banned, Facebook does a ton of business there.) It's a huge market for Microsoft, Apple, and even Google makes billions of dollars from it.

The Great Firewall doesn't seem to be doing a great job of keeping any of them out.

plumeria• 6 years ago

Can you elaborate on Facebook's business in China, please?

chrischen3• 6 years ago

This is not the reason why the Trump administration is doing this nor is it even a good reason.

The reason is we don’t want a Chinese company which can be compelled by the Chinese government to hand over the data to operate a social network used by so many Americans. Trump even said as much so.

If the US government can do national security letters, force Apple to make modified devices for covert operations, And monitor/log metadata, China is able to do so to their domestic companies as well.

Really so long as China challenges the US for superiority there is no way to avoid conflicts like this and no real way for China to comply except to maintain a clear #2 position. Inventing and speculating on nonsensical rationale doesn't really help in any way.

three_seagrass5• 6 years ago

Bytedance is a Cayman Islands company, not Chinese. Despite having offices in Beijing, Bytedance and Tiktok are not beholden to the Chinese National Intelligence law.

TaoTiao, on the other hand, is a subsidiary in China and is beholden to CNI, but the executive order has nothing to do with that company and there is no evidence that it receives data from TikTok.

khuey5• 6 years ago

The idea that ByteDance is not beholden to the Chinese state is contradicted by the founder's own words.

https://chinamediaproject.org/2018/04/11/tech-shame-in-the-n...

bassman90005• 6 years ago

I don't understand this naivete.

https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/china-national...

https://www.mannheimerswartling.se/globalassets/nyhetsbrev/m...

Do we really believe because, "legally", the company is not in China, is not subject to CCP control? It's not the law that binds them, it's party lines.

If Bytedance is not subject to said control, why do they ban content critical with China, knowing the possible backlash?

https://www.vox.com/open-sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-...

US politicians’ concern over TikTok began with an investigation the Guardian published on September 25, which revealed leaked documents that showed TikTok instructing its moderators to censor videos that mentioned topics sensitive to the Communist Party of China: Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the religious group Falun Gong, for instance. The Guardian’s investigation came after the Washington Post noted that a search for Hong Kong-related topics on TikTok showed virtually zero content about the ongoing and widely publicized pro-democracy protests, which were a major topic on other social media sites at the time.

abc-xyz• 6 years ago

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 with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.

Thorrez4• 6 years ago

US legal precedent is based on legal decisions in the US, not legal decisions in China.

temporalparts• 6 years ago

I found YouTube's Legal Eagle's analysis of the legality of the ban interesting. Would be interesting to hear HN's take:

https://youtu.be/BnjhHPU-uRw

R0b0t12• 6 years ago

The president has extremely broad powers. In general I think it safe to assume he can do these things (sans demanding a cut of the proceeds). Typically these powers are granted during emergencies, but again, the president seems to be able to declare those whenever he wants.

It's just before now they were wielded with restraint and mostly ignored. This should be a wake up call.

Part of the issue is there is now a real discussion over whether or not this is allowed. In a previous United States that this discussion would have existed would have been ludicrous. The basic premise of the IEEPA seems valid, but there seems to be very little effective check by congress.

ta17711771• 6 years ago

Goodness, YouTube is a network now.

three_seagrass5• 6 years ago

Of course they are.

CFIUS is the governing body who decides which foreign investments are a threat to the U.S., not the president, and they have been investigating TikTok for two years without finding anything despite the recent executive order. It makes the executive order look more like political headline bait than having actual teeth, especially considering IEEPA prohibits executive power from being used to block speech or media.

tssva2• 6 years ago

The IEEPA gives the president the authority to restrict any economic transactions with foreign entities if he declares a national emergency regarding the activity. The judgement as to whether the national emergency is justified is granted to the president with almost no restrictions. The president must send a report to congress within 30 days justifying the declaration. Congress can then chose to over rule the declaration. A new report with justification for continuing the emergency must be sent to Congress at certain intervals and Congress can again choose to override the emergency. These are different from the powers given to the CFIUS under the Defense Protection Act.

At first glance it would appear that Trump has authority under the IEEPA do take the actions he has. Tiktok is most likely going to base their legal action on challenging the constitutionality of the IEEPA. Tiktok's argument of violating due process alludes to this being the case.

three_seagrass5• 6 years ago

The president does not have broad authority under IEEPA.

Congress specifically limited presidential authority when passing the act, and TikTok is protected under IEEPA 50 U.S. Code § 1702(b):

The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly - (1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value; ... (3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1702

m0zg4• 6 years ago

I recall people were quite willing to "block speech or media" when Russian operatives were organizing anti-Trump protests on Facebook in 2016. What has changed since?

belltaco• 6 years ago

Astroturfing isn't protected as free speech. There is no evidence Tiktok was being misused for propaganda.

foota• 6 years ago

It's different when the president does it.

excalibur• 6 years ago

Russian operatives were organizing anti-Trump protests

That seems unlikely. Source?

Thorrez4• 6 years ago

A private website deciding to block certain content from showing up on its own website is different than the government blocking content.

drieddust6• 6 years ago

What is wrong with being political against an ideology threatening the World?

World needs to reciprocate to China in like India did recently. If China is a closed garden with entry gates controlling the inflow into China, World needs to build exit gates controlling the outflow from China. No other justification is required.

saagarjha• 6 years ago

Marking an ideology as “threatening the world” is inherently political.

bllguo2• 6 years ago

the hysterics when china is involved are amusing. "ideology threatening the world" is just a comical accusation to levy when juxtaposed with the West's track record of imperialism, forcibly spreading "democracy" and supporting coups worldwide, initiating wars across the globe - the list goes on. Be upfront with it already, we all know it's really about power and economics.

javert2• 6 years ago

No. We should not respond to tyranny by being a tyranny. We should respond to it by standing up for our values: freedom, free speech, individual rights, open borders, free trade, and so on. If our system is so good---and it is---China's system is no threat.

Your point of view---responding to a perceived "threat" by abandoning our principles and freedoms---is why Bin Laden and the terrorists won 9/11.

drieddust6• 6 years ago

WoW, lots of angry words. West has its problems but they don't compare to China.

But to the current point if Google is restricted in China why should TikTok have free reign ?

And to elaborate on threat to the world:

1. Who caused current pandemic and why?

2. How many died in Wuhan any why there is no honest disclose despite entire world suffering?

3. Why China is engaged in border conflict with every single neighbor on some pretext or other?

4. How do you justify oppressive social credit system?

someperson• 6 years ago

No, CFIUS has NOT been investigating TikTok for 2 years. It was in November 2019 (10 months ago) that CFIUS started investigating TikTok (ByteDance's 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly) [1]

It amazes me that such incorrect assertions get so mindlessly upvoted on Hacker News.

You've written that elsewhere that "Bytedance is a Cayman Islands company, not Chinese. Despite having offices in Beijing, Bytedance and Tiktok are not beholden to the Chinese National Intelligence law", so it seems you might be unknowingly (or knowingly) spreading incorrect information.

The HN community deserves a lot of blame for being unable to filter out such falsehoods.

[1] https://securitytoday.com/articles/2019/11/04/tiktok-nationa...

bravo22• 6 years ago

Re: posts with false information.

The cynic in me thinks that HN is not immune to astroturfing by foreign or domestic actors anymore than Reddit or Facebook are.

kevin_thibedeau• 6 years ago

Maybe Congress could get off its ass and pass some data privacy laws first?

kn0where• 6 years ago

No, no, we can’t have that because then the US government and American companies couldn’t siphon all the data up for nefarious, I mean patriotic, purposes.

vmception• 6 years ago

Exactly, if we fix that how are we going to deflect everything accurate and bad by yelling “whataboutism” at anyone with a brain

econcon• 6 years ago

I wonder why there isn't a tinder like app where there are no photos but you ask for a price to meet and when you pay that price, then it opens a conversation channel where photos can be exchanged with single click and it's on you to see if you wish to accept or decline the proposal.

There are tons of fake people on tinder, who never show up. Payment will act as deterrent for these con people.

And dating app makes money as % of the transaction that occurs on the app.

And it never charges you without actually getting a "meeting" out of the app so experience is fair.

And if women are looking to meet man, they can also initiate and offer to pay.

Tinder sucks you can pay for Tinder Gold but it doesn't guarantee even a single date.

Integrity• 6 years ago

Facebook's Instagram came out with "reels", essentially a clone of Tik Tok. And isn't that act a complaint by us companies against China?

daodedickinson4• 6 years ago

I feel there might be disparate impacts between the reactions from CCP threats and USFG threats...

yalogin• 6 years ago

It feels like they don’t need to take any action, the danger has probably passed. Trump extended the window to 90 days which will be after the election. He achieved what he wanted, to appear tough on China and so if history is any indication about how he deals with China, this will be ignored and things will be go back to normal without any issues for China. The president is all talk and no action usually.

dmitrygr• 6 years ago

Still trying to exploit the assimetry I see.

When did the last American company manage to challenge being banned or forced to take on a local "slightly more than equal" partner in china?

TikTok to challenge U.S. order banning transactions with the video app

Related Stories