Wonder how long before Chinese people will have to anglicize their names in the U.S.
On a more serious note, I wonder how this can be enforced? Prevent distribution on Play store and apple store? Can't you just sideload on android? You have to prevent connections to the server side right? Maybe via ISP providers or mobile companies to get them to prevent access?
This has been happening for a long time. You really think that a first generation immigrant from Asia spells their last name Liu or Sato with Roman letters?
> Wonder how long before Chinese people will have to anglicize their names in the U.S.
Why would they have to do that? Most Americans probably can't tell the difference between Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or other East Asian names. I guess if Fox News starts publishing "this is what a Chinese name is" we should worry (not that I should give them any ideas), but I really doubt that'll happen. Americans don't like the Chinese government, and for extremely good reason.
> On a more serious note, I wonder how this can be enforced? Prevent distribution on Play store and apple store? Can't you just sideload on android? You have to prevent connections to the server side right? Maybe via ISP providers or mobile companies to get them to prevent access?
Yea it'll be blocked on the official distribution channels. You'll probably be able to side load it, but lots of people don't know how to do that and probably don't care enough. I guess we'll find out what happens. The US can certainly have companies like ISPs comply here.
I'm assuming both of them will replace "download from Play Store" with "download the apk" if/when they get removed from the stores. That's what Fortnite does already.
WeChat too. People will be able to sideload those apps on Android to keep current with new features and invisible changes to the server protocol. That's going to be a source of vulnerabilities though.
WeChat seems like a really big deal here. My understanding is that to basically function in China you need to have WeChat on your phone (to call a car, pay at a restaurant, etc. )
If we box Americans out of it entirely, how will that affect travel to China? Will people pick up cheap/limited-use androids at the airport that they can use for all these functions?
Americans don't have access to the payment features of WeChat since it requires a Chinese bank account (with the exception of HK and Macau). It's a pain in the butt. Even as someone living in HK with an RMB denominated Unionpay card, I can't use it to pay in mainland China.
I can only guess it's a mix of local regulations and the fact that the RMB (CNY) isn't freely convertible.
There's an HK version of WeChat pay which is more open but isn't very widely used since we have had the Octopus stored value card for nearly 25 years which serves a similar purpose. For everything else there's MasterCard (or Visa / AE).
Same with Didi—-needed to be used with a SIM card linked to a Chinese bank account/national ID. Ended up just paying cash for cab rides because of that hassle.
Some people will do that. But the vast majority can barely handle email clients, so they will not bother to figure out how to install manually. They will simply move to the next garbage out there.
I've been spending some time in Italy, and I've been surprised to notice that banks, services and tv advertisements are often talking about the Huawei Appgallery (it's listed as an alternative for Google Play or the iOS app store)...
Obviously, that's because new Huawei phones won't be able to ship with the Google Play services, so they had to invest in this, to be able to deliver a decent app ecosystem to their users and thus stay afloat...
But this also means that it's thus a viable alternative (unencumbered by US diktats) to distribute stuff like Wechat and Tiktok, example:
Obviously, enabling a third party store is still a form of sideloading, which opens you up to risks, but at least people won't have to manually manage APKs
The silver lining is that this might increase competition, and let also other 3rd party stores thrive (i.e. F-Droid, Amazon store, etc.)
"The US commerce department, which will issue the orders, stopped short of forcing Apple and Google to remove the Chinese versions of TikTok and WeChat from their app stores in China."
The rest of the world really needs to free itself from American monopoly big tech.
It is simply unacceptable that I, a European in a European country, can have arbitrary apps on my phone blocked and removed by the whims of the American president.
On one hand I would like to agree with you, but on the other I'm reminded of all the update services running on my PC back when I used Windows and... no thanks.
I prefer to be able to install updates from one place.
In Debian, there is a package management tool, apt. One can update all services, install packages &c through it.
But it is a tool, not a store, not a repository. One points apt at whatever repositories they want. Thus folks like Ubuntu can fork Debian but use the same apt tool; create their own repository & point /etc/apt/sources.list at their repository rather than Debians.
Apt goes further still. Debian doesn't/can't provide Google Chrome in their repos, but I can add a Google repository to /etc/apt/sources.list, and now my package manager can install Chrome. One can also do wild things like have both Debian & Ubuntu repositories listed in sources.list, and mix and match packages from the two, & manage/prioritize where to prefer to install from if unspecified.
In contrast, we see other comments mentioning F-Droid (which requires elevated permissions most users don't have access to, i believe) as a good shop, versus Play Store. But even if that is the case, there are now multiple separate managers running on a system, each tied to their own repository, where-as by contrast, if apt were running on a phone, it could manage whatever set of repositories/stores the user selected, in a consistent central fashion.
This model seems ideal to me. There are multiple repositories (stores) where one can install from, using a common, local package management tool that interfaces with these repositories. It has the upside of creating a good way to manage the system, & that manager can interface & harness many different sources of software concurrently.
Well how do they install "apps" on their computers right now without app stores? You know, there is really nothing magical about phones that requires them to need app-stores or marketplaces for software. Other than we've been putting ourselves into a corner that makes it necessary for them to be an ultra-secure computing device as opposed to our desktop devices.
They type a possibly inaccurate description of what they're looking for in their browser's default search bar and end up downloading and executing random programs from random websites without bothering to verify the trustworthiness of any of this process.
You seem to be willfully ignoring the prevalence of malicious software and the necessity of at least some form of curated "software garden" in which users can have high confidence they are not accidentally installing malware.
Let me correct you there. The US needs to free itself from the monopoly big tech as well. I speak for a lot of people when I say we feel just as helpless and frustrated as the rest of the world.
If you haven't read it already, you should check out Ben Thompson's article on The Four Internets (https://stratechery.com/2020/india-jio-and-the-four-internet...). He talks a lot about what he thinks the future of the internet looks like in relation to geopolitics.
Specifically, he makes the argument that the "American" internet is favorable to creating companies b/c it's effectively a wild west (with limited regulations and laws which favor the corporations, along with a relatively-rich user base). This allows many companies to start in America and then expand globally, which in turn allows the US to exercise soft power abroad.
To change the status quo, in Europe in particular, would require either gov't intervention on what can be accessed via the internet (closer to what India is doing) OR more favorable laws to the creation of small tech cos (which unfortunately is not what regulation like GDPR accomplishes).
Not saying I agree with all of it, but it's interesting to think about the nation-scale incentives to create global internet superpowers.
For what it’s worth, so far there is no evidence to indicate that you can. All this paragraph points to, at best, is that the US Commerce Department thinks that you can. In fact it’s not clear whether it does, because it’s not clear who suggested that it might: the commerce department, or someone with no understanding of the legal capabilities it has?
> It is simply unacceptable that I, a European in a European country, can have arbitrary apps on my phone blocked and removed by the whims of the American president.
Well, I think in Europe you could probably have regulators say that these apps have to be available in order for the companies to operate in the EU or in specific countries. Not that I think that's a good idea, and the EU's approach to try and placate both China and the US has been a failure in my view (both are just taking advantage of fragmented EU member state interests).
But let's take a broad perspective here. Countries all throughout the world can take actions that have consequences in other countries. The EU implements a tax on US tech companies or regulations (which I do largely agree with, but that's besides the point) and that affects me in the US. With a globalized world, it should be obvious that when the big movers make moves, things will reverberate around the world.
Here's another example, I am (if you take a look at my post history you can confirm this! :) ) a HUGE fan of the Apple App Store model. If the EU forces Apple to allow multiple app stores, I imagine Apple will do that in the US too. It is simply unacceptable that I, as an American in America, can have arbitrary rules and regulations imposed on me by the whims of the EU bureaucracy.
There is a huge difference between mandatory and voluntary.
Blaming a foreign country for something Apple might do voluntarily (but most probably would not because they have to reason to harms their own interest) is absurd.
Every time you buy a US made phone, or use Google for searches, you are supporting the existence or the development of this situation. There was nothing stopping a European company (Nokia?) from making a good phone. But they didn't - at least in 2020 Apple won and Nokia lost, that might well change in the future.
Unfortunately the EU is relying on the US to keep the bad apps away, I'm pretty sure TikTok etc. are in gross violation of EU laws but unfortunately nobody in the EU has the cojones to enforce max (or meaningful) GDPR penalties.
MOST concerning is the fact that WeChat will be banned. To many Asian demographics, that's a mainstream chat application for keeping in touch with family.
No family in China, but some friends there. Do you know of any good replacements for contacting friends & family there?
The google suite is banned, FB is off the table, WhatsApp works sometimes (I imagine strained relationships between FB / China), Skype is alright, although pretty laggy.
The ones I've found reliable are:
- Zoom
- Facetime (I imagine this benefits from Apple's relationship wit the Chinese govt)
- WeChat (soon deprecated)
I agree, except apparently the ban isn't actually a ban on using it[1]. (I say apparently because it seems to change by the house)
I honestly don't think anyone knows what the policy actually is. The administration cares more about soundbites than policy, but the people who need to administer it don't really seem to know what to do. It would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad.
I think this is partly the purpose. The US administration does actually want to cut off communication between China and chinese in the US. It's a feature of this legislation, not a bug.
TIL about tiktok.com, and it (at least for me) serves up a very linguistically diverse bunch of defaults. Maybe Oracle should promise to screw down the filter bubbles tighter?
One would think that instead of cutting channels, the US would prefer to expand them, so that china residents would not only be theoretically aware of the greater nominal US GDP, but also could practically see for themselves all the material advantages[1] that freedom brings.
Goldstein: "... the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison."
[1] not to mention that there is always a wider story than necessarily that shown by their international coverage. For instance, a quick search for (pardon my machine translation) "美国国际新闻" on youku got me
https://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDcwNTI3OTk4NA==.html which is obviously not representative of the US as a whole.
Sure. There are also many cases where any kind of speech can be illegal, depending on the context and content of the speech. That does not mean that form of speech is not constitutionally protected.
Legally, whether photographs are speech seems to come down to whether they are taken with communicative intent or not.
This is within the well known (and tested) limits of freedom of speech... which neither TikTok or WeChat software were found guilty of (with or without due process).
I don’t think software is speech, but to play devil’s advocate for a moment; if money is speech then why can’t software be speech? Both propositions seems equally ridiculous, but the Supreme Court has affirmed that money is speech.
"One of EFF's first major legal victories was Bernstein v. Department of Justice, a landmark case that resulted in establishing code as speech and changed United States export regulations on encryption software, paving the way for international e-commerce."
Terrible precedent it may be yet the idea that software is speech is probably even worse. You can’t just equate software with speech because to prevent an outcome you dislike.
Maybe this is my mechanical engineering brain kicking in but isn't software more akin to machinery? I press the run button and gears turn and oil burns and a piece of toast comes out.
It's not physical, it's just an suite of ideas written in the form of a (programming) language, just like a book, so nothing to do with machinery. This is essentially the same argument against software patents.
Interestingly the list of prohibited transactions includes "internet transit/peering enabling the functioning of Tiktok" in the U.S, among other things.
The full wording is "Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;"
I've written my own BGP implementation and even I'm not quite sure what they mean by this. My best guess is this means ISPs operating in the US can't directly peer with a network that enables the functioning of TikTok, but probably doesn't go as far as requiring them to block any IP address ranges received indirectly via other networks.
I guess "Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S." is to prevent simply browsing https://www.tiktok.com/ ?
> As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTok, the following transactions are prohibited:
Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.
Not a big fan of this. It was weird having a Wechat call alongside my wife talking to her grandmother in china basically under the assumption that this may be the last time we talk to her ever because wechat is going to be blocked.
Later we learned that it was only going to be removed from app stores, which is easy enough for me to work around. But I really don't appreciate this move by the government.
Not to understate all the awful things that the CCP has done and is continuing to do, but I'd rather not see the USA become the authoritarian government that it's trying to combat.
How about ordering app stores to put a warning label that the app may be leaking data to hostile foreign governments, rather than taking away MY choice to use the app?
From my understanding they are both blocked (or atleast not available on chinese app stores). I believe imessage & facetime would work, except my relatives don't have iPhones.
Realistically, if it came down to it my plan was to buy a VPN to china, and if that wasn't good enough to unlock wechat, to send relatives an iPhone. A simple app store block is a lot easier to get around, luckily.
OT: is there a trick to getting a VPN that works reliably? I’ve tried a different one each time I’ve visited and none have worked well enough for basic web browsing
Are you talking about a VPN into china or a VPN out to the western internet?
For the latter, I don't know if this still works but last time I visited China my Google Fi plan (which has a built in VPN https://support.google.com/fi/answer/9040000?hl=en ) actually worked with no further changes, so I was able to pretend I was on western internet over 4G the entire time I was in China. This was in early 2019.
Which is lucky for me because the school VPN I was initially relying on stopped working halfway through the trip.
Skype as of 2019 was working. Whatsapp was blocked a while ago. Currently I know that Teams and Zoom both work into or out of China. There is a new WeChat clone that popped up when all of this started that was marketed in China as a way to evade this ban for people that needed to talk with others outside of China, but I don't remember the name at the moment.
Sad about WeChat, but have to admit it sucks that China uses surveillance of the platform to imprison people. Would be great if it forces everyone to use Signal or whatnot that has E2EE.
This is disappointing yet expected from the executive.
What's more disappointing is watching the thunderous applause from technologists here and elsewhere as software is outlawed which is not otherwise illegal and is not being litigated as illegal. We should not cheer on the restriction of any software on nationalistic terms. Content is one thing, physical equipment another, but algorithms should be borderless. Most in the community disagree with encryption export restrictions, why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? 2A groups recognize slippery slope precedents, why can't technologists?
If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been.
I don't really see this as a liberty issue, but rather one of strict economic advantage.
China currently has that---it ignores IP laws, when it suits them, but enforces them when it suits them. It forces ownership requirement rules on foreign companies within China, but encourages Chinese-backed take over of foreign companies outside of China.
It bans foreign products within its country, to protect homegrown companies (or steals the IP, then bans the competition if it can't buy out the devalued company).
In the case of trade between two multi-trillion dollar economies (US & China), if one side never retaliates over bad faith, and always is more permissive than the other then that side is bound to lose out.
The way China is behaving, and has behaved for the past 30+ years, is unfair and detrimental to US companies and trading partners. It may sting in the short term to be denied Chinese financial support, and Chinese products but in the long term this is the only way to either force China apply parity and fairness in its own rulings, or stimulate a local economy that isn't wholly dependent and subordinate to Chinese interests.
On Monday, will you be able to download TikTok in the USA? If not, how is that not an issue of liberty?
You may be willing to give up liberty in exchange for some leveling of economic advantage, but you cannot also say that you are not, in fact, giving up that measure of liberty.
If we recognize the government's ability to enact boycotts and sanctions, we must recognize its ability to ban foreign companies with connections to adversaries. If we reject the former, we have to make an argument that incorporates its centuries of precedent. (In the United States. Millenia, more generally.)
Rapid, unannounced & disruptive chaos. Massive harm to the citizens of all the world, injurious to our ability to communicate. Done by fiat, with no precedent, the flimsiest of legal pretenses, & only the vaguest attempts at remediation.
Thank you, well said kodablah. This conflict-seeking behavior, this sudden slamming the door: it's a threat to functioning world order & against civic cause.
> ...which is not otherwise illegal and is not being litigated as illegal. We should not cheer on the restriction of any software on nationalistic terms
Right. Instead of selectively banning apps like TikTok ban all chinese apps, that would be fair to china
I don't think they are lock-in to US based public cloud providers since they also use Chinese cloud providers, but I wonder how this ban will impact discussions around vendor lock-in. Lots of companies will go into deep trouble if US decide to ban their business to use US based services in such short notice.
This is under the Emergency Economic Powers Act, which derives its authority from the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution. There's a free speech issue here - can one distribute free software despite the wishes of the administration? ACLU says the administration went too far.[2] Expect a lawsuit shortly.
All TikTok politics aside, this is another case why walled-garden app stores are a terrible idea. Content controlled by a single corporation means it is this easy to shut down software.
Compare this scenario vs. trying to prevent people from using, say, irssi (or any IRC client) where the source code is available from a thousand places and one can simply compile it locally.
145 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 243 ms ] threadOn a more serious note, I wonder how this can be enforced? Prevent distribution on Play store and apple store? Can't you just sideload on android? You have to prevent connections to the server side right? Maybe via ISP providers or mobile companies to get them to prevent access?
Why would they have to do that? Most Americans probably can't tell the difference between Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or other East Asian names. I guess if Fox News starts publishing "this is what a Chinese name is" we should worry (not that I should give them any ideas), but I really doubt that'll happen. Americans don't like the Chinese government, and for extremely good reason.
> On a more serious note, I wonder how this can be enforced? Prevent distribution on Play store and apple store? Can't you just sideload on android? You have to prevent connections to the server side right? Maybe via ISP providers or mobile companies to get them to prevent access?
Yea it'll be blocked on the official distribution channels. You'll probably be able to side load it, but lots of people don't know how to do that and probably don't care enough. I guess we'll find out what happens. The US can certainly have companies like ISPs comply here.
Sure you can pirate it, but anyone involved in procuring or operating a banned app would be violating this order.
It's like saying "oh guns are banned but can't I just call someone I know who can get me a gun?"
> It's like saying "oh guns are banned but can't I just call someone I know who can get me a gun?
I mean... that's how lots of people get illegal things. Drugs? Etc.
If we box Americans out of it entirely, how will that affect travel to China? Will people pick up cheap/limited-use androids at the airport that they can use for all these functions?
There's an HK version of WeChat pay which is more open but isn't very widely used since we have had the Octopus stored value card for nearly 25 years which serves a similar purpose. For everything else there's MasterCard (or Visa / AE).
Obviously, that's because new Huawei phones won't be able to ship with the Google Play services, so they had to invest in this, to be able to deliver a decent app ecosystem to their users and thus stay afloat...
But this also means that it's thus a viable alternative (unencumbered by US diktats) to distribute stuff like Wechat and Tiktok, example:
https://appgallery.huawei.com/#/app/C5683
Obviously, enabling a third party store is still a form of sideloading, which opens you up to risks, but at least people won't have to manually manage APKs
The silver lining is that this might increase competition, and let also other 3rd party stores thrive (i.e. F-Droid, Amazon store, etc.)
The rest of the world really needs to free itself from American monopoly big tech.
It is simply unacceptable that I, a European in a European country, can have arbitrary apps on my phone blocked and removed by the whims of the American president.
I prefer to be able to install updates from one place.
But it is a tool, not a store, not a repository. One points apt at whatever repositories they want. Thus folks like Ubuntu can fork Debian but use the same apt tool; create their own repository & point /etc/apt/sources.list at their repository rather than Debians.
Apt goes further still. Debian doesn't/can't provide Google Chrome in their repos, but I can add a Google repository to /etc/apt/sources.list, and now my package manager can install Chrome. One can also do wild things like have both Debian & Ubuntu repositories listed in sources.list, and mix and match packages from the two, & manage/prioritize where to prefer to install from if unspecified.
In contrast, we see other comments mentioning F-Droid (which requires elevated permissions most users don't have access to, i believe) as a good shop, versus Play Store. But even if that is the case, there are now multiple separate managers running on a system, each tied to their own repository, where-as by contrast, if apt were running on a phone, it could manage whatever set of repositories/stores the user selected, in a consistent central fashion.
This model seems ideal to me. There are multiple repositories (stores) where one can install from, using a common, local package management tool that interfaces with these repositories. It has the upside of creating a good way to manage the system, & that manager can interface & harness many different sources of software concurrently.
They depend on others or they install malwares on their computers, do you want the same to be happening on their phones?
Specifically, he makes the argument that the "American" internet is favorable to creating companies b/c it's effectively a wild west (with limited regulations and laws which favor the corporations, along with a relatively-rich user base). This allows many companies to start in America and then expand globally, which in turn allows the US to exercise soft power abroad.
To change the status quo, in Europe in particular, would require either gov't intervention on what can be accessed via the internet (closer to what India is doing) OR more favorable laws to the creation of small tech cos (which unfortunately is not what regulation like GDPR accomplishes).
Not saying I agree with all of it, but it's interesting to think about the nation-scale incentives to create global internet superpowers.
The Commerce Department choosing not to go that broad doesn't make it less concerning that they can go that broad.
The Federal government's primary function is to regulate interstate and international affairs.
Well, I think in Europe you could probably have regulators say that these apps have to be available in order for the companies to operate in the EU or in specific countries. Not that I think that's a good idea, and the EU's approach to try and placate both China and the US has been a failure in my view (both are just taking advantage of fragmented EU member state interests).
But let's take a broad perspective here. Countries all throughout the world can take actions that have consequences in other countries. The EU implements a tax on US tech companies or regulations (which I do largely agree with, but that's besides the point) and that affects me in the US. With a globalized world, it should be obvious that when the big movers make moves, things will reverberate around the world.
Here's another example, I am (if you take a look at my post history you can confirm this! :) ) a HUGE fan of the Apple App Store model. If the EU forces Apple to allow multiple app stores, I imagine Apple will do that in the US too. It is simply unacceptable that I, as an American in America, can have arbitrary rules and regulations imposed on me by the whims of the EU bureaucracy.
Blaming a foreign country for something Apple might do voluntarily (but most probably would not because they have to reason to harms their own interest) is absurd.
Orange guerrilla marketing for the win!
The google suite is banned, FB is off the table, WhatsApp works sometimes (I imagine strained relationships between FB / China), Skype is alright, although pretty laggy.
The ones I've found reliable are: - Zoom - Facetime (I imagine this benefits from Apple's relationship wit the Chinese govt) - WeChat (soon deprecated)
WebRTC-based software? (e.g. Jitsi Meet, https://meet.jit.si)
I honestly don't think anyone knows what the policy actually is. The administration cares more about soundbites than policy, but the people who need to administer it don't really seem to know what to do. It would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/impending-wechat...
Really? Whatsapp is mainstream app not the wechat.
As far as I know, as part of it, it's definitely dominant in the Chinese Diaspora.
Actually, just checking now, 1.2 billion users.
One would think that instead of cutting channels, the US would prefer to expand them, so that china residents would not only be theoretically aware of the greater nominal US GDP, but also could practically see for themselves all the material advantages[1] that freedom brings.
Goldstein: "... the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison."
[1] not to mention that there is always a wider story than necessarily that shown by their international coverage. For instance, a quick search for (pardon my machine translation) "美国国际新闻" on youku got me https://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDcwNTI3OTk4NA==.html which is obviously not representative of the US as a whole.
If not, who decides what software is allowed or not? Will I need to get a license from the government before I push my PR to a repo?
> Yes, all photography is speech and any form of photography should be allowed.
> If not, who decides which photography is allowed or not? Will I need to get a license from the government before I publish a photograph online?
You see the problem here, don't you? There are many cases where a photograph can be illegal.
Legally, whether photographs are speech seems to come down to whether they are taken with communicative intent or not.
There's no evidence at all that software can in any capacity be speech as defined under the us constitution.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
It is a stretch, however, to present this decision as a precedent preventing the government from regulating application markets.
Interestingly the list of prohibited transactions includes "internet transit/peering enabling the functioning of Tiktok" in the U.S, among other things.
I've written my own BGP implementation and even I'm not quite sure what they mean by this. My best guess is this means ISPs operating in the US can't directly peer with a network that enables the functioning of TikTok, but probably doesn't go as far as requiring them to block any IP address ranges received indirectly via other networks.
This applies both to TikTok and WeChat.
And why did it not do whatever it was supposed to do?
https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/09/commerc...
> As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTok, the following transactions are prohibited:
Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.; Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.; Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.; Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.
Later we learned that it was only going to be removed from app stores, which is easy enough for me to work around. But I really don't appreciate this move by the government.
Not to understate all the awful things that the CCP has done and is continuing to do, but I'd rather not see the USA become the authoritarian government that it's trying to combat.
How about ordering app stores to put a warning label that the app may be leaking data to hostile foreign governments, rather than taking away MY choice to use the app?
Realistically, if it came down to it my plan was to buy a VPN to china, and if that wasn't good enough to unlock wechat, to send relatives an iPhone. A simple app store block is a lot easier to get around, luckily.
For the latter, I don't know if this still works but last time I visited China my Google Fi plan (which has a built in VPN https://support.google.com/fi/answer/9040000?hl=en ) actually worked with no further changes, so I was able to pretend I was on western internet over 4G the entire time I was in China. This was in early 2019.
Which is lucky for me because the school VPN I was initially relying on stopped working halfway through the trip.
What's more disappointing is watching the thunderous applause from technologists here and elsewhere as software is outlawed which is not otherwise illegal and is not being litigated as illegal. We should not cheer on the restriction of any software on nationalistic terms. Content is one thing, physical equipment another, but algorithms should be borderless. Most in the community disagree with encryption export restrictions, why can't they similarly disagree with software import restrictions? 2A groups recognize slippery slope precedents, why can't technologists?
If the content/data is being harvested and/or managed illegally, then make that illegal and/or prosecute under that pretense (even if the evidence is subject to national security non-disclosure). Otherwise, it's obvious this is political posturing at the cost of digital freedom. It should be as widely condemned as government surveillance has been.
China currently has that---it ignores IP laws, when it suits them, but enforces them when it suits them. It forces ownership requirement rules on foreign companies within China, but encourages Chinese-backed take over of foreign companies outside of China.
It bans foreign products within its country, to protect homegrown companies (or steals the IP, then bans the competition if it can't buy out the devalued company).
In the case of trade between two multi-trillion dollar economies (US & China), if one side never retaliates over bad faith, and always is more permissive than the other then that side is bound to lose out.
The way China is behaving, and has behaved for the past 30+ years, is unfair and detrimental to US companies and trading partners. It may sting in the short term to be denied Chinese financial support, and Chinese products but in the long term this is the only way to either force China apply parity and fairness in its own rulings, or stimulate a local economy that isn't wholly dependent and subordinate to Chinese interests.
You may be willing to give up liberty in exchange for some leveling of economic advantage, but you cannot also say that you are not, in fact, giving up that measure of liberty.
I don't actually use TikTok, btw.
Our supposed difference is that we have a system of laws and accountability and doing business with the US isn't at the whim of a manchild like China.
This is not a good thing.
Being morally right is of no use when it hurts your own citizens.
If the US had a problem with tiktok they could've implemented a privacy framework and put everyone on that standard.
China could be using the Tiktok data and doing similar things which Russia and others did with FB data.
What privacy framework? How would that prevent China from accessing Tiktok data?
Thank you, well said kodablah. This conflict-seeking behavior, this sudden slamming the door: it's a threat to functioning world order & against civic cause.
Right. Instead of selectively banning apps like TikTok ban all chinese apps, that would be fair to china
Are you saying we should trust communists with our data? This should have been Apple’s move! But they failed us.
What's the legislative authority for this?
This is under the Emergency Economic Powers Act, which derives its authority from the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution. There's a free speech issue here - can one distribute free software despite the wishes of the administration? ACLU says the administration went too far.[2] Expect a lawsuit shortly.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/11/2020-17...
[2] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-we...
Compare this scenario vs. trying to prevent people from using, say, irssi (or any IRC client) where the source code is available from a thousand places and one can simply compile it locally.