They did. Divisions H and I of HR 815 of the 118th Congress make it illegal to collect, broker, lease, trade, or sell US Citizen’s personally identifying data to an adversarial nation which is defined in Article 10 as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
You’re complaining about the law and you literally have no idea what that law says?
The problem is this doesn’t apply across the board. Why is it only illegal if they’re selling it to a foreign company? It should be illegal to sell it full stop. This just gives the US government a monopoly on the information which I’m more afraid of than a foreign country having my data since I live here and they can directly affect me.
They made it illegal to sell it to people who explicitly want to harm the USA. Thats a good start.
Ironically, most USA based social media platforms are already banned in China. It just makes sense, if TikTok wants to operate here they need the chinese owners to divest to below 20% or stop sending personal data overseas.
Ah ok so we should start doing the things China does then? I think them banning social media platforms is also bad when the bans are just done for the sake of monopolizing social media platforms under the control of the government. Decentralized platforms like this are a nice way around that but most people aren’t gonna use them. So having platforms based in different countries to allow different perspectives on stories like with Israel/Palestine is good. Cause if we can only access American social media platforms you know they’re just gonna fully suppress coverage on issues that America and various lobbying groups don’t want to be talked about.
So technically you’re right, but the law they passed left a HUGE loophole. And by loophole I mean just don’t be based on those counties and you can gobble up whatever data you like.
It’s not even a “loophole” it’s literally irrelevant to what people generally think of as “data privacy.” Something like GDPR is an example of data privacy.
Those laws should cover every social media site though. Not just the foreign ones. If they’re going to ban tik-tok they should ban the rest too. I’m not in favor of this but the double standard is fucking stupid.
“Pig Butchering” and political radicalization towards violence, as well as the largest YoY increase in hacks, specifically from china, which have had large measurable impacts on US Industry.
And thats just ongoing problems, they’ve probably gotten enough peoples social security, bank acc no., fingerprint, facial ID, etc to do so much more if they decide to cash in on their schemes early.
Also, if they suddenly decide the USA is weak enough, such as after losing a third of annual defence spending capability via withdrawal from NATO, the Chinese now have intimate knowledge of our defences.
You are already paying the price and it could only get worse.
Facilitated by, maybe. Contributed to, sure. The primary end goal of, no.
ByteDance wasn’t operated for profit like the others, it was operated to do harm. The fact that they would rather shut down than sell 80% of ownership for a hefty profit is proof of that.
Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.
Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016
DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT
Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act
(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.
Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)
For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)
would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).
The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.
Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.
The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.
(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.
DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024
Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024
This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).
Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).
A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.
The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Top part opinion the rest is the wording of the law you quoted. Want to point out if it has fangs or any actual good legislation or just say they did a thing?
My point is that you saw this image and immediately concluded that OP didn’t know there was any sort of data privacy adjacent thing in the law, but in reality it could be that OP knew that but wanted stronger protections or just didn’t consider those clauses “data privacy.”
When people think of data privacy they generally don’t think of “selling data to adversarial nations.” They usually think of “selling data to anyone” or “the right to request their data be deleted.”
They did. Divisions H and I of HR 815 of the 118th Congress make it illegal to collect, broker, lease, trade, or sell US Citizen’s personally identifying data to an adversarial nation which is defined in Article 10 as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
You’re complaining about the law and you literally have no idea what that law says?
The problem is this doesn’t apply across the board. Why is it only illegal if they’re selling it to a foreign company? It should be illegal to sell it full stop. This just gives the US government a monopoly on the information which I’m more afraid of than a foreign country having my data since I live here and they can directly affect me.
They made it illegal to sell it to people who explicitly want to harm the USA. Thats a good start.
Ironically, most USA based social media platforms are already banned in China. It just makes sense, if TikTok wants to operate here they need the chinese owners to divest to below 20% or stop sending personal data overseas.
Ah ok so we should start doing the things China does then? I think them banning social media platforms is also bad when the bans are just done for the sake of monopolizing social media platforms under the control of the government. Decentralized platforms like this are a nice way around that but most people aren’t gonna use them. So having platforms based in different countries to allow different perspectives on stories like with Israel/Palestine is good. Cause if we can only access American social media platforms you know they’re just gonna fully suppress coverage on issues that America and various lobbying groups don’t want to be talked about.
By banning FaceBook, China is keeping itself safe from influence that could be used as a weapon to cause great and irreparable damages.
Whether I want harm to come to them is besides the point that it is a rational and logical decision.
I think the disconnect here is that you don’t think they are weapons, that you don’t think they will be used to commit harm.
Then why wasn’t tik tok blocked immediately instead of being allowed to operate for years.
It shuts down this Sunday, so less than a year. To give them the opportunity to
a) Stop sending US Citizen personal data to China
AND
b) Divest Chinese Ownership to below 20%
To be clear, the USA didn’t ban TikTok. TikTok owners are choosing to shut it down rather than sell.
Says 2018
https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/01/a-complete-history-of-tiktok-launch-us-ban-and-best-viral-dances-13823263/
The ban going into effect on Sunday is not the result of Donald Trump’s actions but instead the 2024 HR 815 of the 118th Congress, divisions H and I.
So technically you’re right, but the law they passed left a HUGE loophole. And by loophole I mean just don’t be based on those counties and you can gobble up whatever data you like.
It’s not even a “loophole” it’s literally irrelevant to what people generally think of as “data privacy.” Something like GDPR is an example of data privacy.
You also can’t send the data there or be more than 20% owned by non-US-citizen citizens of those countries.
TikTok owners have stated repeatedly that they will shut down this Sunday rather than sell.
Sure, but even if TikTok sold it wouldn’t solve the problem. Hell them not selling also doesn’t solve the problem.
The problem is that data is gobbled up and sold. Data/privacy protection laws to stop that would be useful.
Those laws should cover every social media site though. Not just the foreign ones. If they’re going to ban tik-tok they should ban the rest too. I’m not in favor of this but the double standard is fucking stupid.
I choose to believe a hostile foreign dictatorship means more harm than a hostile domestic for profit business.
Probably because that aligns with what each of them says they want, to say nothing of their actions.
Bht hey, if at least one of them gets banned thats a win.
WTF is the foreign dictatorship going to do to the average citizen?
“Pig Butchering” and political radicalization towards violence, as well as the largest YoY increase in hacks, specifically from china, which have had large measurable impacts on US Industry.
And thats just ongoing problems, they’ve probably gotten enough peoples social security, bank acc no., fingerprint, facial ID, etc to do so much more if they decide to cash in on their schemes early.
Also, if they suddenly decide the USA is weak enough, such as after losing a third of annual defence spending capability via withdrawal from NATO, the Chinese now have intimate knowledge of our defences.
You are already paying the price and it could only get worse.
Most of those things are facilitated via US social media as well.
Facilitated by, maybe. Contributed to, sure. The primary end goal of, no.
ByteDance wasn’t operated for profit like the others, it was operated to do harm. The fact that they would rather shut down than sell 80% of ownership for a hefty profit is proof of that.
Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.
Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016 DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT
Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act
(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.
Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)
For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)
The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.
Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.
The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.
(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.
DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024
Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024
This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).
Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).
A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.
The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Didn’t read.
Top part opinion the rest is the wording of the law you quoted. Want to point out if it has fangs or any actual good legislation or just say they did a thing?
Data privacy is so much more than “selling data to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.” What a weak rebuttal.
So nothing short of a complete ban of all social media and advertising is Data Privacy to you, then?
Something like GDPR would be the sane, non-strawman take.
Right so the arbitrary line of not data privacy and is data privacy lay just before GDPR.
My point is that you saw this image and immediately concluded that OP didn’t know there was any sort of data privacy adjacent thing in the law, but in reality it could be that OP knew that but wanted stronger protections or just didn’t consider those clauses “data privacy.”
When people think of data privacy they generally don’t think of “selling data to adversarial nations.” They usually think of “selling data to anyone” or “the right to request their data be deleted.”
If you don’t recognize data privacy as data privacy thats just a skill issue.
You’re literally the one not recognizing it, but okay.
If only someone gave a shit about the law
The meme references the US violating privacy.
And what does the meme say?
Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
It says the US wants to be the only one stealing your data and spying on you.
As far as I am concerned, the number of people spying on US Citizens is being decreased.
Celebrate that.
The person you’re talking to is deliberately not going to agree with anything you’re saying, fyi.
Yeah for sure, its why I usually stick to short replies.
Because anything longer than a sentence pivoting to another argument and it all falls apart.
It is not.
ignorance is bliss
It would be easy and rational to attribute misinformation memes like this to ignorance, but to be honest I can’t help by imagine it is malice.
There’s definitely some malice in there i don’t doubt, which likely bleeds into the unwillingness to prove one’s biases wrong