Ex-White House CIO tells The Reg: TikTok ban may be diplomatic disaster Congress is mulling legislation that will require TikTok's Chinese parent ByteDance to cut ties with the video-sharing mega-app, or the social network will be banned in the USA. The law bill has passed the House and is now before the Senate. In an interview you can watch below, former White House chief information officer …
"you need to be play-booking the worst scenario of what a shutdown means,"
I'm not sure they'd be calling it "the worst scenario", more like a game of chess. It probably means preparing to roll out something called "Tock-Tick" or the like that they've prepared for just such an even and trying to work out how close to 180 days they can get and still be first mover.
That might work for Facebook, but not so much for ISPs or phone store providers. I think the requirements are easy enough for Apple and Google. TikTok comes out of their stores immediately and that's basically it. However, maybe they need to consider whether the government will want them to actively remove the app from people who already have it and whether they're willing to take that action and how they'll do it without annoying users too much.
ISPs have a trickier situation to consider if the article's theories about mandated connection blocks prove true. This seems extreme to me, but I think there's a chance that the ban is simply overturned by a court, so if I'm wrong, anything could happen.
A while back I bought Pimlical through the Google Play store. Pimlical is the current offering from the author of the long-ago popular Palm Pilot app Datebk3 and then Datebk4, which I also used back in the day.
I changed phones, and didn't use it for a while, then decided I wanted to try it again. Gone from the Play store, because the author didn't want to play Google's games any more.
No recourse but to buy it again, directly from the author.
No, thanks.
Yup. Thanks to Play Protect, Google can remotely tell all Android devices "if you see an APK with the following hash, whether it was installed from the Play Store or sideloaded, immediately uninstall it without warning the user". It's intended to only nuke actual malware, but they've used it in the past to enforce the Google Graveyard™ for apps they've killed... such as Google Play Music, which to this day requires some spicy workarounds to be able to sideload a pre-killswitch version, even on a rooted device.
Yep. That's my concern. It's a bit hard to keep track because at least two different bills have been called "the tiktok ban", but even the less bad of the two (which I think it the one we're talking about) contains some worryingly vague language about when and why the government could order a service blocked.
I'm all for free speech, with limitations on causing or inciting harm to others (by which I mean physical violence, not 'I find that content offensive' harm*), so this is a tricky one. On the one hand, it is not only very heavy handed, it is also very prejudicial (ie, there doesn't have to be any actual harm demonstrated, just a blanket ban on hostile-foreign-controlled content). On the other hand, there is actual population-level brainwashing that can be done through these apps, simply by subtly promoting videos espousing certain policies or sympathetic to certain causes, while hiding videos of opposing ideologies.
I think such things *should* be regulated, but this isn't the way to do it (also because it's just as easy for, eg, Facebook, to do the same thing). What is problematic isn't the hostile-foreign control in and of itself, what is worrying is that these platforms have effective editorial control over what they promote and what they hide but pretend they are just a neutral platform (and should therefore be unregulated)
*Note that I'm not saying that psychological harm isn't real, it's just impossible to objectively measure and therefore to regulate
"Isn't the concern more along the lines of data harvesting by a foreign power?"
That might be the concern of US Congress, but the real concern should be "data harvesting" (by anyone). And whether it's data harvesting or undue influence, it should be stopped from any corporation, not just foreign-owned ones
Well I disagree. There isn’t a case of USA choosing which businesses can and can’t have an online presence due to freedom of speech protections. Regulating business, and banning foreign owned media, are two different things. The slippery slope is that once this is done, it becomes much easier for general political control of internet companies without worrying about freedom of speech complaints
With no express right to privacy in the U. S. Constitution, the US is going to be hard pushed to legally prevent entities commercial or otherwise(*), domestic and foreign, from hoovering up US citizens data.
I can see US corporations and the Republicans supporting a privacy bill that only applies to foreign entities, but not one that restricts domestic businesses from exploiting US citizens…
(*) I wonder whether companies such as Palantir are arms length commercial fronts for the NSA et al, so they can legitimately collect data o US citizens, without it being classed as spying…
The fourth amendment only regulates what the government is allowed to do, not private companies. Just like the first amendment, as we've been repeatedly reminded these past few years: Companies are allowed to block your speech on their platforms, it's just the government who technically can't order them.
Actually, the fourth amendment says "the right... shall not be infringed". That's much broader than the first amendment, which specifically says "Congress shall make no law...", and could be interpreted as meaning that the government has a duty to protect the right from all threats, not just government.
Isn't this the 4th amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No mention of the word infringed.
This seems to give a reasonable statement on the current state of affairs
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
As it is from US university law faculty, I would expect it to be fair representation of how things are.
Sounds like a general privacy is LONG overdue.
Something straightforward like California’s (EU GDPR clone) CCPA applied as an amendment to the Federal Level so it’s consistent for all and doesn’t fall into the usual mess of 50 states with different legislation and endless wasteful and pointless legal and legislative bickering and dick waving.
> "Pick an American icon company that builds things in China. They could say 'you're no longer allowed to do business here and you need to divest.' There's a diplomacy concern here as well," Payton said.
Hm. I thought China had already done this to several large companies, and they had left as a result. I'm also pretty sure China has gone "give us your source code or GTFO"
Plus the Great Firewall is blocking pretty much everything American already.
Plus isn't this going to mean "the yoots" are simply going to get VPNs?
"China has gone "give us your source code or GTFO""
Thats SOP in China. We were required to hand over a copy of our source before we could deploy to China. I don't think it ever got updated so the value of that early cut of the system pretty low in terms of running bootlegs of it, but invaluable from learning the design and architecture.
And of course you can't go it alone, you need to be in a "Joint Venture" with a Chinese Company. The purpose of that quite obviously so that the local "partner" gets enhanced access to your IP to make it easier to syphon off.
Being kicked out would be the best thing for us -- if it wasn't already too late.
To add nuance, the partnership is required to either yield majority stake to the Chinese partner _or_ yield the technology rights. So a foreign company operating in China chooses whether to share the tech. This avoids companies operating there but providing no benefit to their economy beyond labor extraction. The more sinophobic westerners somehow turn this into "they're stealing our tech!"
"So a foreign company operating in China chooses whether to share the tech."
Sure, in the same way that if I'm your boss and I skim some money off your wages, you choose whether to let me do that or choose to not have a job. Not a free choice by any means. That's the stupid logic that makes this unjust law sound reasonable, after all, ByteDance only has to choose whether to give up their service at a hefty deadline discount or to cease operating in a good market, they get to decide when and how they do one of those things. Neither is a choice anyone makes unless they are required to.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, perhaps it's your final comment, but I think you're absolutely correct on the first point. Theresa Payton is wrong to be concerned about the repercussions of banning TikTok because that already happened a long time ago. Google left China because it wasn't worth it for what they were being forced to do. Facebook tried to get in and never got anywhere despite being run by the worlds biggest sycophant.
None other than Donald 'Make America Pray with my Bible' Trump.
That was after a major stockholder in TikTok/Bytedance was entertained at Mar-a-lardo.
funny was a large donation to the Wannabe Dictator's cause can do isn't it?
Project 2025 are already talking about repealing the 22nd Amendment which limits POTUS to two terms. Trump becomes POTUS for life like his pal Putin.
Vote Blue in 2024 before you lose the right to do it ever again.
>Anyone who uses TikTok, especially those who make their cash from TikTok will vote against the regime that does this.
It has 'interesting' tri-partisan support.
The GOP are for it cos China is the new bad
The Dems are for it cos a lot of foreign 'alternative truth' targets users who are likely their voters
The chosen one is against it cos a donor is a ByteDance investor he is fundamentally committed to free speech above mere global politics
Those who are of an age to vote but are not normally inclined to do so might do so now and there will be frech cohorts coming along at each election. I doubt party managers of either stripe would welcome the thought of a Tik-Tok party emerging, even as a protest vote.
You haven't heard of social media influencers? There's money on TikTok, though most of us aren't good looking enough or charismatic enough to succeed. As to whether TikTok users vote - some will. They haven't previously been an identifiable demographic but banning their playground may change that.
It's stupid to try and ban it. Sure, ban it on government devices or devices that connect by VPN to government resources etc. but you can't tell the public they can't use an Internet service.
Don't ban it, decry it. Educate. They push propaganda into kids' heads all the time. Do something positive, like drumming the dangers of "Tik Tok challenges" and bad and/or malicious information into their heads. All bad information, not just politically inconvenient. Not only Tik Tok but all online places where idiots congregate.
It'll be good business for privacy VPN/Proxy services, at least.
Strictly, they've not outright banned any non-Chinese apps / social networks... they just demand all companies follow Chinese laws. Which involves following whatever censorship and monitoring the government requests, and that ends up being either too expensive or politically unpopular for most American companies. For example of the latter, Microsoft offers Bing search within the Chinese mainland and complies with the government's take down requests; Google pulled out because at the time they were still claiming to "do no evil". For an example of the former, Microsoft offered Linked-In in China for many years, and only recently pulled out because the cost of complying became too much.
If the US actually had federal privacy laws they could demand all apps / social networks didn't collect too much personal information, and publish their algorithms, promotions, etc, to prove no bias or undue influencing. But that would be lobbied furiously against by Google, Facebook, Musk, etc, so instead we have this.
The best way to draw attention to something and make it more popular is to ban it. The internet is all about being difficult to place limits upon. If a ban goes into place, people will get a VPN, maybe even one that ByteDance sets up. There could be proxy pages that aren't the Tiktok website but mediate the connection as if it is. "Burner" web sites that can be put in place as fast as the last one gets pulled down. Accessing a banned Tiktok will be "naughty" so making it even more popular than ever with the younger crowd.
Governments dont really care about privacy, though its funny as the politicians are the most at risk of being blackmailed or exploited with poor privacy standards for the populous.
I think the thing that western governments fear most from TikTok is that its an uncontrolled broadcast platform that has massive reach into the population, especially the 18-25yo demographic.
Imagine if there was a tv channel that had as many daily viewers as TT, its parent 'company' was the Chinese Communist Party, and they could apply editorial direction if they chose to.
Im not saying this is happening, but it could.
Old media is regulated and can be controlled, in UK a D-notice can be issued, or tv stations seized. But with TT it cant be. (Without doing what they have proposed)
Politicians are worried, and should be, that if a nation state was to start applying subtle messaging into the videos watched they would have significant influence on the viewers.
We cant say that messages on TT dont effect behaviour. The whole premise of the TV/Print/Online sales and marketing industry is that what people see effects their choices and behaviour.
That is the real problem. TikTok is smoke & mirrors to distract us. The objective is to install legislation permitting ARBITRARY executive branch censorship of ALL on-line platforms.
Sure, when my team (red or blue) is in charge, that sounds like a great idea! But it is downright oppressive when my team is not in charge. Ultimately what sounded like a good idea has only led to more government control of the populace and inherent limitations on the freedom of ideas.
Why are we being so stupid and allowing this bad legislation to happen? This is not about TikTok. This is an 'opportunity' the government is taking to expand oppression and legalize tyranny.
If you love Trump, do you want Biden to have this kind of power? If you love Biden, do you want Trump to have this kind of power? I don't want EITHER of them to have this kind of power!!!!
Although we all know that "TikToc is Chinese" in practice its not, at least not directly. Like many large corporations its multinational with ByteDance being owned mostly by international banks with the founders and employees retaining minority shares. I'd guess the founding IP and ongoing development are mostly, if not all, Chinese but this idea that its some some kind of puppet controlled directly from the Forbidden City in Bejing is absolute nonsense. I'm not Chinese so I don't know how workplaces are organized but I'd guess that the "Chinese Communist Party" thing is just noise since this is common in all Chinese companies. (Anyone from the PRC care to fill us in on what this is and how it works?)
What I do know is that as an American the text of this Bill is an admission of weakness and ignorance on our part which, when enacted (its an election year....) will have repercussions far beyond one company and one application. Like a lot -- most -- material pushed at us by our legislators its just noise that's used to disguise its true purpose. The best explanation for it for this attack is given by Yanis Varoufakis (in his book "Technofeudalism"), its explained in terms of modern international money flows where the revenue of "big technology" companies, almost exclusively owned by and controlled from inside the US, counterbalance the outflows due to chronic trade imbalances. This explanation not only makes sense logically but it also explains why our legislators are a bunch of useless morons** -- they're like prize farm animals managed by farmers/lobbyists, livestock to be fed, humored, led around by the nose and generally coddled so that they produce the desired results. (Reality, truth or what's best for the US -- who cares?)
(**Apologies to people with lower intellectual capacity....)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
