Comment by hedora | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hedora | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The agreement would let agencies examine TikTok’s US facilities, records, and servers with minimal prior notice and veto the hiring of any executive involved with leading TikTok US data security organization.

Granting access to TikTok servers to multiple US agencies is 100% about letting the US spy on users (just as they have the right to under US law, such as the US CLOUD Act, and also via the well-documented and illegal warrantless surveillance programs we all know about). Blocking executive hires is clearly so they can prevent whistleblowers from working in the organization, and is exactly what the US did when it was using Crypto AG to spy on its allies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...

Anyway, I'm against a ban of TikTok for the same reason that laws that target specific companies or individuals are unconstitutional. Instead, we should ban the things TikTok does that we think should be illegal, and then apply the law equally to US and foreign social media companies.

The hiring veto grants essentially the power to install a covert agent.

"We veto all your choices. But what about this guy... Relocating from Langley, VA wouldn't be hard for him."

> Instead, we should ban the things TikTok does that we think should be illegal, and then apply the law equally to US and foreign social media companies

This would would destroy billions of dollars in profits, take down most of the ad-tech industry, which is why I suspect it will never happen. It's much easier to target individual companies like TikTok, or Cambridge Analytica while leaving the gravy train going.

For the record, I fully agree with you on what the remedy ought to be - just cynical about viability.

> laws that target specific companies or individuals are unconstitutional

This is a misunderstanding. The constitution prohibits “bills of attainder”, which are laws that short-circuit the justice system and punish past behavior legislatively rather than via the judicial system, basically declaring “it is the law that x is guilty of crime y (and will be punished with z)”. Targeting an individual or small group is only one of the several criteria that need to be satisfied for such a law to be unconstitutional.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/...

> laws that target specific companies or individuals are unconstitutional

Do you have a link for this? If you're referring to bills of attainder, my understanding wasn't that they're as broad as just "targeting".

> Instead, we should ban the things TikTok does that we think should be illegal, and then apply the law equally to US and foreign social media companies.

This is how the previous "Ban Tiktok" bill basically made VPNs illegal.

>right

Government spying isn't a "right," the government doesn't have rights. Just a fine point but important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com