• AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 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
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 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
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              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
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

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

    • WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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.