SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for soylent_brown
Lawmakers ask US intelligence to assess if TikTok is a security threat – TechCrunch
Two lawmakers have asked the government’s most senior U.S. intelligence official to assess if video-sharing app TikTok could pose “national security risks” to the United States.
In a letter by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), the lawmakers asked the acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire if the app maker could be compelled to turn Americans’ data over to the Chinese authorities.
TikTok has some 110 million downloads to date and has spiked in popularity for its ability to record short, snappy videos that are sharable across social media networks. But the lawmakers say because TikTok is owned by a Beijing-based company, it could be compelled by the Chinese government to turn over user data — such as location data, cookies, metadata and more — even if it’s stored on servers it owns in the United States.
Both Schumer and Cotton warn that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is “still required to adhere” to Chinese law.
“Security experts have voiced concerns that China’s vague patchwork of intelligence, national security, and cybersecurity laws compel Chinese companies to support and cooperate with intelligence work controlled by the Chinese Communist Party,” the letter, dated Wednesday, said. “Without an independent judiciary to review requests made by the Chinese government for data or other actions, there is no legal mechanism for Chinese companies to appeal if they disagree with a request.”
That same legal principle works both ways. U.S. companies have been shut out, or had their access limited, in some nation states — including China — over fears that they could be compelled to spy on behalf of the U.S. government.
See also: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday October 27 2019, @02:43AM (9 children)
Typically the common wisdom and excuse is that there are no US companies, but international corporations. They typically do have to comply with local laws though and the real issue is what to do when local laws and/or practices are incompatible.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 27 2019, @03:55AM (8 children)
The both ways thing is only tolerated because it's convenient for both corporations and governments for responsibility-shifting purposes. The only actual sane way to work with international Internet commerce and regulation is to have the corporations follow the laws of the nation they incorporate in and applicable tax laws of any nation their customers are in. And ignore every other law. There is no other solution. If, say, GDPR gets to be a thing then China gets to make whatever rules they like as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday October 27 2019, @04:09AM
So, say Apple is an Ireland company, while most of so called Russian commodity companies are Cyprus.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday October 27 2019, @05:55AM (1 child)
Oh, but there are. Many solution are possible.
One of them: no international/multinational companies unless the laws of different incorporation/operation countries are homogeneous (e.g. EU).
I.e Apple Ireland != Apple US, each of them have their own board and CEO and books and stockmarket quotations and obey the law of the country they operate in. Same for Google (sush... if you dare to utter "synergy", I'll let my ass laugh you out).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 27 2019, @02:36PM
I kind of thought that was implied in what I said. Incorporate in a country and you're bound by that nation's laws and only that nation's laws, excepting things like tariffs and such. One corporation incorporated in Ireland owns a corporation in the US, the one in Ireland has to obey Irish laws and the one in the US has to obey US laws. Mind you, if a corporation is wholly owned by another corporation, the child corp should be treated as if it were a sole proprietorship rather than a corporation for tax and liability purposes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Sunday October 27 2019, @05:58AM (3 children)
So now you are supporting the idea that 'on a computer' makes things different? I most strongly disagree. Internet commerce should be treated no differently than any other kind of commerce.
A company must obey the laws of the country in which they are conducting business. And if you don't like that premise then take your business elsewhere. Trying to get around the law by incorporating in one place but conducting business elsewhere is still an attempt at avoiding the consequences of those laws. And if you adopt such laws for US companies be prepared for the consequences. For example Teva pharma - an Israeli company - can quickly undercut the prices charged by any of the US companies when trading inside the US. The EU could subsidise Airbus and the US would just have to suck it up. After all, your rules won't apply to European companies. And so on...
Of course, the US would just apply other measures to counter what you are now suggesting, which boils down to the biggest bully wins. Now that surely isn't an intelligent way to try to cohabit this planet.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 27 2019, @02:44PM (2 children)
I'm proposing the idea that a business operating from the UK (incorporation and all physical presence and property) should not have to follow, or even keep up with, French laws unless they decide they need to put servers in France, yes. If France dislikes that, they're free to block $corp's IP addresses at the border and seize anything shipped to their shores.
Yes, I know the consequences. And it's still the least FUBAR way of doing things for all concerned despite it's particular inherent drawbacks, because the inherent drawbacks to any other method are worse.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 27 2019, @05:51PM (1 child)
That was probably a bad choice of countries - while Britain remains in the EU all member states have the same regulations.
And I don't think that what you are suggesting is a better way of doing things. If you want to do business in France you have to obey French law. If you want to go on holiday to Mexico, you have to obey Mexican law. If you are suspected of committing an offence in the UK, then you should answer the charges in the UK. What if I came to the USA but ignored your laws simply because I am not American - would you think that acceptable, or would I be expected to follow US law?
If you don't like our laws, take your business elsewhere. We'll manage OK. I'm sure some people will moan about it, but life will still go on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 27 2019, @10:16PM
The difference being, a website operating on UK servers, incorporated in the UK, with no physical presence outside the UK, and doing its banking in the UK can never legitimately be said to be doing business in France. There's zero legitimate reasons to treat it any different than someone in Lyon ordering something on the phone or by mail from a London company.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27 2019, @02:38PM
Your mental laziness is boring.
Newspeak for "I don't want to think about this any more, and I'm going to flip out if you keep talking about possible solutions."