And what is the evidence for it being a Chinese spying platform? Is it owned by a Chinese company? Is there any hard evidence? Why is it so controversial?
And what is the evidence for it being a Chinese spying platform? Is it owned by a Chinese company? Is there any hard evidence? Why is it so controversial?
They are while doing business in the USA
Yes, which doesn’t solve the problem because the problem is in China. The Chinese government can demand any information that ByteDance possesses. Under Chinese law, they are bound to comply and bound to deny that they were even asked under threat of extremely harsh punishment.
It does solve the problem at least as far as then you’d have legal standing to ban til too, and equally anything else that doesn’t follow the law
I would expect a meaningful data privacy law would involve forcing the client software to be audited to ensure they aren’t collecting the information in the first place?
You’re conflating privacy and espionage. The reason basically every country in the world has laws about foreign ownership of media and telecommunications infrastructure is not because of privacy concerns – it’s because of the potential for espionage. That fanciful law with no chance of passing in the US (even if it should!) would reduce but not eliminate the problem. It’s illegal for China to operate weird little secret police stations in foreign countries to threaten, intimidate, and control the Chinese diaspora, but that hasn’t stopped them from doing it. Having them control powerful monitoring and tracking tools doesn’t make it harder. They are very capable of surreptitiously doing shit they shouldn’t.
No I’m not conflating anything, you’re just moving the goalpost…
from
to
People can still do murder even though its illegal and most murderers are never caught, so we shouldn’t have laws making murder illegal because it doesn’t “solve” murder
🙂 perfect is the enemy of good. I don’t think we’re going to “eliminate” espionage, something that has existed for all of written history…
No, you’re conflating privacy and espionage.
I’m not moving the goal posts. The order for China to divest is about espionage. The ban stemming from their refusal to divest is about espionage. Your privacy law doesn’t solve this problem because it’s not a privacy problem, it’s an espionage problem.
To take your murder example, it’s like saying ‘I don’t see why everyone’s so worked up about China coming here and shooting people. People get shot here every day and the army doesn’t get involved!’ Despite sharing some details, domestic gun violence and war are different. You’re focusing on the trees and missing the forest.
I’m not opposed to your proposed law. I’d support the hell out of it. It would solve other important problems, even if it wouldn’t solve this one. But saying that a country can’t do anything about espionage unless they pass that law is unrealistic.
Who said that?
You, in a nutshell. You’re saying that they shouldn’t address specific threats. Why not both?
Reading comprehension