{"id":37418,"date":"2024-09-16T14:45:00","date_gmt":"2024-09-16T14:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=37418"},"modified":"2024-09-28T12:03:35","modified_gmt":"2024-09-28T12:03:35","slug":"tiktok-ban-goes-to-the-court-5-essential-reads-on-the-case-and-its-consequences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/tiktok-ban-goes-to-the-court-5-essential-reads-on-the-case-and-its-consequences\/","title":{"rendered":"TikTok ban goes to the court: 5 essential reads on the case and its consequences"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Eric Smalley<\/a>, The Conversation<\/a><\/em> and Matt Williams<\/a>, The Conversation<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

TikTok headed to court on Sept. 16, 2024<\/a>, in a bid to overturn a law that would force the video app to divorce from its China-based parent company or be banned in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the appearance before a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, layers for TikTok said imposing such a prohibition would have \u201cstaggering<\/a>\u201d consequences for free speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court hearing is the latest development in a lengthy saga over the fate of an app that is widely popular, especially among young Americans, but that many politicians in Washington fear poses or is a security risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever the outcome of the oral arguments presented by lawyers from the U.S. government on one side and TikTok and parent company ByteDance on the other, it\u2019s unlikely to be the end of the story. Many analysts expect the case will head to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But why is TikTok controversial? Are the claims of it being a national security risk valid? And what will the case mean for free speech? The Conversation\u2019s contributors have been on hand to answer these and other questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. An agent of the Chinese state?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Politicians who want to ban TikTok, or at least sever its links to China, fear that the app provides a way for the Chinese Communist Party to influence Americans or use their data for malicious purposes. But how much influence does the Chinese government have at TikTok? That question is addressed by Shaomin Li<\/a>, a scholar of China\u2019s political economy and business at Old Dominion University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Li explains that the relationship between TikTok, ByteDance and the Chinese Communist Party is nuanced<\/a> \u2013 it isn\u2019t simply a matter of officials in Beijing telling ByteDance to jump and the parent company dictating how high its subsidiary will leap. Rather, as with all companies in China, employees are under certain obligations when it comes to advancing national interests. In China, private enterprises, such as ByteDance, operate as joint ventures with the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRegardless of whether ByteDance has formal ties with the party, there will be the tacit understanding that the management is working for two bosses: the investors of the company and, more importantly, their political overseers that represent the party,\u201d Li writes. \u201cBut most importantly, when the interests of the two bosses conflict, the party trumps.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Exploiting user data<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The risks TikTok poses to U.S. users are similar to the risks posed by many popular apps, principally that the app collects data about you. That data, which includes contact information and website tracking, plus all data you post and messages you send through the app, is available to use or misuse by ByteDance and any other entity that has or gains access to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iowa State University cybersecurity researcher Doug Jacobson<\/a> writes that U.S. officials and lawmakers are concerned that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok user data<\/a> to spy on U.S. citizens. Government hackers could use the TikTok data to trick users into revealing more personal information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if the goal is to counter Chinese hackers, banning TikTok might prove too little, too late. \u201cBy some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means,\u201d Jacobson writes. \u201cThe Chinese government \u2013 along with anyone else with money \u2013 also has access to the large market for personal data.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. The security risks of a ban<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Banning TikTok could also make U.S. users more vulnerable to hackers of all stripes. Rochester Institute of Technology computer security expert Robert Olson<\/a> writes that many of the more than 100 million U.S. TikTok users could try to get around a ban on the app, with negative consequences for their digital safety<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If TikTok ends up banned from Apple\u2019s and Google\u2019s app stores, users could try to access the app elsewhere via sideloading. This practice of getting around Apple and Google app stores leaves users vulnerable to malware posing as the TikTok app. TikTok users might also be motivated to circumvent Apple and Google security controls in order to keep the app installed, a move that would make users\u2019 phones more vulnerable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI find it unlikely that a TikTok ban would be technologically enforceable,\u201d Olson writes. \u201cThis \u2026 legislation \u2013 aimed at improving cybersecurity \u2013 could motivate users to engage in riskier digital behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. First Amendment concerns<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In its legal challenge to the U.S. government, ByteDance claims the government is violating its First Amendment rights. Technology law scholars Anupam Chander<\/a> of Georgetown University and Gautam Hans<\/a> of Cornell University write that ByteDance has grounds for its claim<\/a>, and that the implications go beyond this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TikTok is a publisher, an online publisher of users\u2019 videos. Forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok is a form of prior restraint \u2013 the government preventing speech before it occurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBy forcing the sale of TikTok to an entity without ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Congress\u2019 intent with the law is to change the nature of the platform,\u201d they write. \u201cThat kind of government action implicates the core concerns that the First Amendment was designed to protect against: government interference in the speech of private parties.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. What about the others?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Security and legal issues aside, the forced sale to a U.S.-based company or ban of TikTok in the United States is a questionable approach to solving the problems<\/a> the law aims to address: potential Chinese government influence in the U.S., harm to teens, and data privacy violations, writes Arizona State media scholar Sarah Florini<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Chinese government \u2013 and other U.S. adversaries \u2013 has long used social media apps owned by U.S. companies to attempt to influence American public opinion. TikTok is hardly alone in posing harm to teens, as the Facebook whistleblower case amply demonstrated<\/a>. And vast amounts of Americans\u2019 personal data are already available to any buyer on the open and black markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cConcerns about TikTok are not unfounded, but they are also not unique. Each threat posed by TikTok has also been posed by U.S.-based social media for over a decade,\u201d Florini writes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eric Smalley<\/a>, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation<\/a><\/em> and Matt Williams<\/a>, Senior International Editor, The Conversation<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Smalley, The Conversation and Matt Williams, The Conversation TikTok headed to court on Sept. 16, 2024, in a bid to overturn a law that would force the video app to divorce from its China-based parent company or be banned in the U.S. During the appearance before a panel of judges at the U.S. Court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":37419,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,295,25,296,28,4,8],"tags":[885,891,886,860,702,255,9986,7437,15365],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37418"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37418"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37418\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37420,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37418\/revisions\/37420"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37419"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}