Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Supreme Court denies Bring Chicago Home appeal attempt (Updated)
Posted in:
* Press release…
Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party issued the below statement following the overwhelming passage of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
“Today, a bipartisan group of members came together to address the grave national security risk posed by TikTok. We speak with one voice and carry the same message as the Directors of the DIA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the head of U.S. Cyber Command — TikTok cannot continue to operate in the United States under its current ownership structure. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate to pass this critical, bipartisan legislation and deliver it to the President’s desk.”
* From Krishnamoorthi’s floor remarks…
First, this bill is not a ban, and it’s not about TikTok. It’s about ByteDance. Let me tell you about ByteDance. ByteDance is a 100 percent owner of TikTok. ByteDance is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, the editor in chief of ByteDance is the Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party cell embedded at the very highest ranks of the company. And he has been charged with making sure that TikTok and all products of ByteDance adhere to quote, correct political direction. This particular bill ensures that ByteDance divests itself of the vast majority of the ownership of TikTok. Our intention is for TikTok to continue to operate, but not under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.
Secondly, this divestment requirement is not new. It’s not without precedent. When the app Grindr, a popular LGBTQ app, was acquired by a Chinese company, and the United States government determined that sensitive data of LGBTQ members of the military and US government officials got into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, they required divestment. This happened quickly. Why? Because Grindr was a very valuable social media company. The same is true with regard to TikTok, and there will be no disruption to users just as there was with Grindr.
Third point. Unfortunately, when Tiktok has appeared before Congress, whether it’s before the House Energy and Commerce Committee or otherwise, it has not been candid, my friends, it has not been candid. First, TikTok said its data is not accessible to China-based ByteDance employees. False. China-based employees routinely access this data, even unbeknownst to employees of TikTok USA. In addition, TikTok said its data will not be weaponized and has not been weaponized against American citizens. Again, false. Published reports have shown that TikTok data geolocation data has been used to surveil American journalists who reported on problems with Chinese-based employees having access to American user data.
Finally. Last week, under the leadership leadership of the Chairwoman and the ranking member, they brought up for consideration our bill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On the morning of that vote TikTok delivered a push notification and a pop-up to thousands of users across the country. They used geolocation data targeting minor children to then force them to call congressional offices in order to continue using the app. And in doing so, these children called and they asked the question, ‘What is Congress and what is a congressman?’ This influence campaign illustrates the need for this bill.
Please pardon any transcription errors.
* US Rep. Chuy García…
Congressman Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) released the following statement after voting NO on H.R. 7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act:
“I voted NO on H.R. 7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act for three main reasons.
“First, I believe the process was incredibly rushed. It’s very rare for legislation to only take four days to get from committee to the House Floor for a vote, and that shortened timeline meant important stakeholders were sidelined as this legislation took shape.
“Second, I have serious First Amendment concerns about this legislation. This bill would functionally ban the distribution of TikTok in the United States, stripping millions of people in this country—and many young people in my district— of a venue for free expression, information, and community. This legislation also grants the President broad new powers to ban other social media platforms, which invites abuse by future administrations.
“Third, I believe this politicized, piecemeal approach inadequately addresses the numerous national security and data privacy concerns about many different social media companies. I’m an enthusiastic supporter of data privacy legislation that comprehensively addresses those concerns, and I will continue to advocate for legislation that adequately responds to them.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:24 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Supreme Court denies Bring Chicago Home appeal attempt (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
= I believe the process was incredibly rushed =
There has been talk about this issue for many years. Maybe the Congressman should have spent more time doing the job he was elected to, rather than spending his time running for a different job.
Comment by cover Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:40 pm
I’m with Chuy on this. You can’t unilaterally start to prohibit social media platforms based on allegations. Red scare 2024
Comment by Wally Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:43 pm
If the problem is the ownership of TikTok being 100% political, that would imply the same actions should be taken against a specific US social media company, now owned/run by the same person/people who are as of this week in full control of the RNC.
This should be fun. Surely out of hundreds of house reps at least one of them will mention this.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:45 pm
Are we going to ban ZTE and Hauwei phones next? Same principle.
Because as much as I hate a “slippery slope” argument, it’s quite the slippery slope.
Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:45 pm
If it was 1974 instead of 2024 and the Soviet Union wanted to buy American television stations, how do you think federal regulators would have responded? This is no different than that.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:49 pm
Sad to see so many members of congress do protectionism for a handful of developers with extensive education on the west coast when they wouldn’t do the same for the union members working in manufacturing in their own districts. Perhaps the workers of ByteDance’s competitors should just learn to code… better?
Comment by Drury's Missing Clock Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:54 pm
Did anyone remember the Forbes article showing employees of TikTok tracking multiple journalists covering the company, improperly gaining access to their IP addresses and user data in an attempt to identify whether they had been in the same locales as ByteDance employees?
Comment by MikeS Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:56 pm
==If the problem is the ownership of TikTok being 100% political==
It’s not. The argument is that it’s a national security issue.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 2:05 pm
“The argument is that it’s a national security issue.”
Is it?
—
In fact, the editor in chief of ByteDance is the Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party cell embedded at the very highest ranks of the company. And he has been charged with making sure that TikTok and all products of ByteDance adhere to quote, *correct political direction*.
—
There’s nothing ByteDance can do, that most Senators didn’t already approve of when they voted to allow your personal data from social media sites and your ISP to be sold to whoever has the money - including all the things that are supposedly of concern here.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see them paint themselves into this corner and have to justify why the exact same activity is fine if someone pays for it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 2:17 pm
@ChrisB, the FCC banned the sale and import of ZTE and Hauwei equipment in 2022. Give it a google.
Comment by JustMe2 Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 2:21 pm
I don’t like the idea of the government banning ways of communicating because they’re scared of what might happen in the future. If there’s privacy concerns, address that, pass some privacy legislation detailing what can and can’t be done with the data, and if the company violates that law THEN punish the company. Don’t ban the company preemptively because “CHINA BAD”. And sure, this isn’t new, the government has been banning other companies because of ties to China as well. To my mind that’s worse, not a defense.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 2:32 pm
Nice to see a nonpartisan agreement in Congress to deal with this national security issue.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 2:55 pm
“I don’t like the idea of the government banning ways of communicating”
That “communication” comes at a cost - and knowing that Bytdance must comply with CCP request it is a bit scary…
“If you sign in with Facebook, information can be shared with the social network too. TikTok says it collects text, images and video from your device’s clipboard if you copy and paste content to or from the app, or share it with a third-party platform”
https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-data-privacy/#:~:text=If%20you%20sign%20in%20with,with%20a%20third%2Dparty%20platform.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 3:03 pm
JJJ was a no too. I wonder who the connective tissue between those two is.
Actually, no, I don’t.
Comment by Fake Reformer Watchdog Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 3:05 pm
Seems like Facebook, Twitter, and TruthSocial are the elephants in the room that no one wants to discuss.
Facebook would gladly sell the data to China, X would gladly use it as leverage with China, and Trump would gladly use it for extortion of China.
Comment by Thomas Paine Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 3:15 pm
TheInvisibleMan is absolutely correct. This “fix” isn’t fixing anything. Information is scraped from all social media sites and sold to any operation that has the money to buy it. Banning TikTok is not preventing the CCP from obtaining all the information it wants. It’s likely just less expensive and more direct.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 3:54 pm
I’d prefer them to deal with China buying up American factories and paying Americans non livable wages, personally. And stop them from buying up giant swaths of land.
Seems more of a serious concern than the TikTok app but, hey, not nearly as splashy I’ll give ya that
Comment by Under Dawg Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 4:15 pm
I’m not a TikTok user, but I don’t understand this at all. There have been documented instances of the misuse of Facebook… the need to regulate social media is bigger than a possible threat from the CCP. We have realized threats from American owned institutions, yet we aren’t doing anything about it.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 4:19 pm
“I’d prefer them to deal with China buying up American factories”
Agreed - Smithfield, Eckrich, and even Nathans Famous are all subsidiaries of China’s WH Group. Look elsewhere in grocery.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 4:27 pm
@under dawg makes a good point.
Some state political types actually use taxpayers money to subsidize the CCP operations.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 4:30 pm
One more thing, According to an SEC report on 2.22.24, Dimon quietly sold off 821,800 JPMorgan shares, worth $150M.
Chief Information Officer Lori Beer dumped $716,000
General Counsel Stacey Friedman sold $1.1 million.
Troy Rohrbaugh, who serves as co-CEO of JPMorgan’s commercial and investment bank, unloaded $13.7 million in stock.
Announcement in Chicago was made 2.27.24. They are playing us in our face. Again we got bigger problems than Tik Tok.
Comment by Leslie D. Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 4:52 pm
- If it was 1974 instead of 2024 and the Soviet Union wanted to buy American television stations, how do you think federal regulators would have responded? This is no different than that. -
This is nothing like that other than being a panic driven red scare reaction. I despise TikTok and won’t use it, but the idea that it’s a major threat to national security is laughable.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 4:56 pm
Laughable? TikTok is a major media platform in the US. It is owned by the Chinese government.
The British don’t think allowing foreign governments to own media platforms is laughable.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/03/13/u-k-moves-to-bar-foreign-state-ownership-of-newspapers/
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 6:20 pm
- The British don’t think allowing foreign governments to own media platforms is laughable. -
Last I checked we stopped following their lead a couple hundred years ago. You may as well ban the internet entirely if you think this is going to make a difference in national security.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 7:06 pm
Requiring the divesture of ByteDance for it to continue operating in the United States is good policy and as Raja points out, the sale happened easily with Grindr.
Now, we can also pass a bill that requires western owners to respect reasonable privacy laws as well which would make this a better bill, but let’s start here. Other democracies are way ahead of us on user privacy and we need to catch up.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 7:38 pm
Solid point Archpundit I haven’t listened to debate yet.
Comment by Macon Bakin Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 9:36 pm
My thoughts:
Whether TikTok presents a national security issue as described is less concerning than Garcia’s commentary on TikTok as a source of “free expression, information, and community”.
In the context of public education, it is a source of distraction, misinformation, and divisiveness. It is also now a well-researched source of distraction to the learning environment for a large percentage of its youngest users.
Ever since the launch of smartphones, followed by the launch of social media, in nearly every class period I am teaching in a high school classroom, it is me against 20-30 addicted students who visibly struggle to put their phones away.
TikTok has only served to exacerbate this.
There are plenty of sensible forums available for “free expression, information, and community”.
TikTok most certainly is not that.
Comment by Zoomer Thursday, Mar 14, 24 @ 4:16 am