BANGKOK: The White House's approach to managing the potential security threats posed by TikTok, WeChat and other Chinese-owned apps is hardly a model of procedural justice.

Without a clear legal or regulatory framework, the Trump administration has issued executive orders banning transactions with the apps respective parent companies - Bytedance and Tencent.

Chinas leaders have not minced words in expressing their displeasure with US actions, referring to those against TikTok as a smash and grab in a China Daily editorial, vowing retaliation and even going so far as to suggest that Beijing could block a future sale.

CYBER SOVEREIGNTY

Yet despite its displeasure, Beijing seems to be witnessing the global adoption of a norm for which it has long advocated. Ironically, it may do them more harm than good.

For years, China has promoted the concept of cyber sovereignty.

Although somewhat nebulous in definition, the term has been used to legitimise censorship, surveillance and localised control of data that make up what is often referred to as Chinas Great Firewall.

Broadly put, it is the notion that the government of a sovereign nation should have the right to exercise control over the internet within its own borders, including political, economic, cultural and technological activities.

Beijings advocacy of the norm of cyber sovereignty has only grown more pronounced over time.

Its annual World Internet Conference, which has drawn attendees such as Apples Tim Cook and Googles Sundar Pichai as recently as 2017, has consistently offered a venue through which Chinese officials could lobby the movers and shakers of the tech world to see the value in this approach.

China has also sought to advance this notion through international bodies such as the United Nations.

For the Chinese Communist Party, cyber sovereignty has proved beneficial in a number of ways.

While enabling the party to both moderate and gauge public discourse and sentiment, the technological barriers also provided space to develop into some of the worlds largest companies, while impeding the entry and success of foreign internet platforms in China.

THE TABLES HAVE TURNED

Chinas model has worked out so well that other countries have begun adopting elements of it. And it is now Chinese companies who seem to be suffering most.

Spurred by a recent escalation of border tensions, India has been purging Chinese apps from the countrys internet.

In addition to its pressure on TikTok, the Trump administration has recently announced the Clean Network programme, a comprehensive tech stack that, if fully implemented, would almost entirely exclude Chinese technology firms.

The adoption of cyber sovereignty as a global norm could now prove to be one of the greatest impediments to Chinas peace, prosperity and development.

As China has few allies and worsening relations with the majority of the worlds most prosperous nations, its firms are finding a shrinking list of attractive overseas markets in which they are welcome.

CHINA LACKING OPTIONS

Whats more, Chinas robust application of the cyber sovereignty principle over the past decade and a half has left it with few options through which to take reciprocal action when their firms are excluded from other nations digital spheres.

After all, they cannot go about banning apps which they already banned years ago.

This reality is already being acknowledged by leaders in Chinas technology industry.

In an article on Sina.com that was later deleted, James Liang, co-founder of the online travel agency Ctrip, advocated for his country to adopt a more open approach to its domestic Internet in order to counter what he views as US diplomatic aggression.

If we simply adopt a tit-for-tat strategy and implement the same xenophobic barriers, we will leave matters in the hands of the US, Liang wrote, adding our countermeasures should be to open up further The United States wants to block WeChat and TikTok, so we can do the opposite.

Whether or not Liangs prescription is correct, such an opening up would be a dramatic reversal of the direction that China and its digital sphere have been heading in, and starkly clash with what appears to be Xi Jinpings vision for the Chinese internet.

What does seem clear is that after years of lobbying the world to accept the notion of cyber sovereignty, China has gotten its wish. To which the axiom applies: Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.

Elliott Zaagman is a writer, speaker, and executive coach who focuses on how China and its organisations engage the world.This commentary first appeared on Lowy Institute's blog The Interpreter. Read it here.

Original post:

Commentary: It's payback time for the way China handled the Internet all these years - CNA

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read more:

Letter to the editor: Censorship by social media - TribLIVE

(Illustration/Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

When CNN hired Sarah Isgur, a former Jeff Sessions spokeswoman and now staff writer at The Dispatch, last year to be a political editor at its Washington bureau, left-wing media types put on a full-court press to smear her professionalism. The CNN newsroom which, last I looked, included former Obama official Jim Sciutto was reportedly demoralized by her very presence. Conservatives, and its probably fair to say that Isgur is a pretty moderate one, arent welcome in mainstream journalism. We dont need to go through all the numbers and polls to stress this point. Journalists have long jumped back and forth between Democratic Party politics and media gigs. The job is the same. The venue is different.

I bring this up because, as my former colleague Sean Davis points out, Nick Pacilio, Kamala Harriss former press secretary, is now in charge of deciding announcing what the president of the United States can and cant say on Twitter to his 85 million followers. Twitter has already removed debatable contentions by the president or, contentions no more misleading than any number of Joe Biden allegations. The point of removing tweets, I assume, has more to do with being able to call Trump a liar than worrying about his spreading misleading information.

But the optics are remarkably terrible for Twitter. Its almost certainly true that whoever holds the job of senior communication manager at the social-media giant will be ideologically progressive like the companys CEO. But could you imagine what the nightly reaction on CNN and MSNBC would be if Mike Pences former spokesperson was seen censoring Joe Bidens tweets during a presidential election? I have no doubt Democrats would be calling for congressional hearings.

*Twitter says Pacilio isnt involved in the removal decisions himself. I have updated the post to reflect his role though Pacilios definitive tweets give users no clue as to how the process plays out or who makes these decisions. I dont think the optics are any better for Twitter, but I should have been more careful.

Follow this link:

Kamala Harriss Former Press Secretary Is the Face of Twitter Censorship - National Review

New Delhi, August 12

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has written a letter to the Censor Board objecting to its undue negative portrayal in the movie Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl, said a senior official.

The movie was released on streaming platform Netflix on Wednesday.

According to the official, the letter mentions concerns related to the movies portrayal of gender bias as an institutional work culture at the IAF.

The movie is based on the life of IAF officer Gunjan Saxena who became the first woman pilot to take part in the 1999 Kargil war. It has been produced by Karan Johars Dharma Productions.

The IAF has written a letter to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) objecting to certain scenes in the movie Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl wherein it has been portrayed in undue negative light, the official said.

The official said a copy of the letter has also been sent to Netflix.

Before the release of the film, the IAF had requested Dharma Productions to modify or delete the objectionable scenes. However, it did not take any action, the official noted.

The Defence Ministry had written to the CBFC last month raising strong objections to the depiction of armed forces personnel in some web series, sources said.

It had urged that production houses may be advised to obtain a no-objection certificate from the ministry before telecasting any film, documentary or web series on an Army theme, they added.

The ministry had received some complaints raising strong objections about the portrayal of Indian Army personnel and the military uniform in an insulting manner, they said.

The sources said the communication last month was also sent to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for consideration. PTI

Visit link:

IAF writes to censor board objecting to its undue negative portrayal in movie Gunjan Saxena - The Tribune India

California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris spent more time during the Democratic primary on a crusade to ban President Donald Trump from Twitter than she did defending her criminal justice record. Now, the California senator has made a re-entry into the presidential race as former Vice President Joe Bidens running mate, and with friends in high places at the social media giant.

Nick Pacilio, served as Harris communications director from 2013 2014 when she was still California attorney general, and now works as Twitters senior communications manager and has been with the company for more than five years.

The arrangement raises questions then, over the social media platforms moderation of political content in the course of the election where the company has already employed selective censorship on right-of-center voices including the prominent flagging of Trump tweets as misinformation, which raised valid concerns over mail-in voting. While executives from the nations four largest tech giants testified before House lawmakers last month fielding questions over internet censorship, Twitter was notably absent even as the website suffered a major security breach compromising accounts of some of the worlds most powerful people just two weeks prior.

When reached by The Federalist whether Pacilio would be involved in decisions moderating political content on the platform, Twitter reduced his role to that of merely a spokesperson.

Spokespeople at Twitter, including Nick, dont make enforcement decisions, wrote Brandon Borrman on behalf of the company. They arent involved in the review process. They share the decisions that are made with the public and answer questions. Thats it.

The optics however, remain dubious given Twitters already high-profile episodes of undue censorship in this years election combined with Harris futile crusade to kick Trump off the website altogether just less than a year ago. It is also public that just two years ago, Twitter had shadow-banned prominent Republicans including several vocal members of Congress and Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

Throughout the Democratic primary, Harris was aggressive in her pursuit to shut down Trumps Twitter account, sending open letters to the companys CEO and attacking the social media giants apparent inaction on the Ohio debate stage in prime time after accusing Trump of using the platform to incite violence.

Twitter should be held accountable and shut down that site, Harris said as she challenged Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to join her crusade in silencing political opposition. It is a matter of safety and corporate accountability.

In an autopsy of Harriss failed campaign, the New York Times reported it was partially young staffers obsession with Twitter that ultimately played a role in sinking the flailing ship.

The Times wrote:

One adviser said the fixation that some younger staffers have with liberals on Twitter distorted their view of what issues and moments truly mattered, joking that it was not President Trumps account that should be taken offline, as Ms. Harris has urged, but rather those of their own trigger-happy communications team.

View post:

Kamala Harris Wants To Ban Trump From Twitter, And Her Former Spokesman Is Now Twitter's Top Censor - The Federalist

It took until Day 11 of the period drama for it to turn out the Tampax ad ban wasn't the fault of the patriarchy after all.

In fact, 83pc of the complaints that got the ad pulled were from women, which came as no surprise to me. Most every woman I know thinks it's awful - because it is.

Not that it's shocking, or embarrassing, or because it "dares" to talk about menstruation. Who cares? The pretence that we're persecuted for periods in 2020 smacks of martyr complex.

It's because the Tampax and Tea ad is degrading, patronising, crass and vacuous. It cheapens women and pretends to be empowering.

It literally suggests many women are so stupid that they can't insert a tampon. It's hackneyed, empty-headed girliness: it does women no favours.

The pathetic attempts at double-entendres - "Get it up there, girls! Not just the tip, up to the grip!" - are puerile and not actually funny.

And no: getting the obvious innuendo is not a case of men "sexualising" women's bodies - but perhaps it's ad executives commodifying them.

Good riddance to the most annoying ad on television. Saves me the bother of having to switch over every time it comes on.

Why is no-one saying this, even though the gender ratio of complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) prove it was women themselves who were miffed?

Could it be because the consensus in Ireland has decreed: you must love the Tampax ad, or else you're a body-shaming woman-hater? Failing that, you are suffering from internalised misogyny. And if you don't think it's sexist, then you're sexist.

We're all supposed to cheer for Procter & Gamble, supposed sponsors of the modern-day Seneca Falls Convention, the first women's rights event.

You should be embarrassed at your lack of sisterhood if you thought the ad was tacky. You must realise you're a prude if you felt uncomfortable. If you found it repulsive, you must be full of shame.

I don't feel remotely grossed out about it myself. But I'm not going to judge another woman if they do.

That's not sisterhood. The basis of the majority-female complaints was how it was offensive to women and condescending. If some women think that, we should listen - not shout them down.

It's an alternative - and valid - feminist perspective.

I'm against all censorship, so I don't support the removal of the ad. Yet the loudest voices criticising the ASAI ban are the same ones who cheer petitions calling for Prime Time to pull transgender debates, or call for exclusion zones around hospitals.

You can't set up a culture of censorship and then sneer when it's not always from liberals.

I'm a freedom feminist: joyfully indecorous and without any hang-ups about sex or sexuality.

I'm not a Victorian maiden, so I don't feel shame about female functions. I don't need to tell you stories about my uterine lining to illustrate this.

I'm with Germaine Greer in The Female Eunuch when she challenged women to taste their own blood if they thought they were emancipated, saying: "If it makes you sick, you've a long way to go, baby!"

I thought Donita Sparks' tampon-throw at the Reading music festival in 1992 was one of the best moments of rock history. YouTube it: not to spare you the details - to see it in all its glory.

But as someone who has pride and respect for female fertility, I found the ad slyly demeaning to my sex. I won't apologise for that, or pretend otherwise, in fear of the girls' brigade.

To deliberately misconstrue this as "something from old Catholic Ireland" is disingenuous. Remember, this is the country that gave the world the sheela-na-gig.

Feminism is complex, and a broad church. There isn't a Little Red Book we all read from. Just because a murmuration of middle-class media feminists tell you something is great, doesn't mean it is.

I'm not going to make a global corporation the good guy, while painting Ireland as backward, to prove I'm a female warrior. I'm not going to bleat on about how our vaginas are sexualised and how the removal of a dumb ad is somehow proof of society's need to shame and control women's bodies.

I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that it's evidence of how men are disgusted by women's monthly blood, without first at least waiting to find out who the actual complainants were.

Incidentally, that's a fiction up there with pregnancy being a turn-off: any red-blooded man finds their pregnant partner sexy as all hell. Maybe there's a way we can castigate them for that too.

The whole conversation has veered into the stupidest stereotypes of women: self-absorbed, over-analytical, attention- seeking and obsessed with what men think of us.

The truth might be harder to accept: nobody cares. Period.

Originally posted here:

You can't set up a culture of censorship then complain over a banned tampon ad - Independent.ie

Last week, President Trump seriously escalated his threats toward the social media app TikTok, which he has accused of posing a threat to national security. If the Chinese-owned app doesnt sell to an American company in 45 days, it will effectively be banned in the US.

You may be wondering how an app thats best known as a place where teenagers post viral lip-syncing videos poses a national security threat. That largely comes down to the fact that TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance. The US government worries the app could be used not only to surveil US users but to censor political speech and spread misinformation that could hurt democracy in the US.

Many of TikToks users and creators havent been deterred by government warnings. Take Laura Lee Watts, who posts skin care and makeup reviews on the app and has about 2 million followers. What shes worried about is losing access to TikTok.

As a civilian, Im not concerned about it all, Watts told Recode. Even if the Chinese government had my information, what are they going to do with it?

While Wattss data might not expose anything sensitive, shes just one of the apps 100 million US users. Several cybersecurity experts told Recode that the app could pose a risk if indeed the Chinese government forced TikTok to share data. Beijing has been accused of employing hackers to uncover all kinds of intellectually sensitive information in the US and other countries, from Covid-19 vaccine research to defense secrets. So its not a complete stretch to consider how certain TikTok users could be exploited say, a defense contractor who uses TikTok for fun but whose phone could have other hackable, sensitive data on it.

There are reasonable concerns on the security side, Adam Segal, a cybersecurity expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Recode. But the issue is, how do you address them, and what precedent are you setting?

Some people have speculated that the president is targeting TikTok to retaliate against the apps users that recently pranked Trumps June campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, by reportedly registering thousands of tickets that they didnt end up using. But TikTok isnt the only Chinese-owned company to become a Trump target. In the recent past, he has halted Chinese development of 5G networks in the US, and hes banned a Chinese company from buying the dating app Grindr. And last week, he issued an executive order that threatens to ban the popular messaging app WeChat, owned by the Chinese mega-company Tencent. Unlike TikTok, theres no plan for WeChat to sell to a US bidder, making it a potentially more impactful part of Trumps crackdown.

Viewed together, Trumps threats to ban TikTok and WeChat are part of his administrations broader strategy of being tougher on China.

There are two related issues driving the conflict. The first is the US governments concern that the Chinese government could force companies like TikToks ByteDance to surveil Americans. This is a worry shared by Republicans as well as some leading Democrats, like Sen. Richard Blumenthal. The second issue is the Trump administrations perception that China is trying to take over the global technology industry, which has long been dominated by American powerhouses. For years, the Chinese government has banned major US tech companies like Facebook and Google from doing business in the country, and now the US is starting to reciprocate by banning Chinese apps.

Tech is one of the most important battlegrounds for the China-US cold war because wrapped up in tech is the conversation of economic competitive strength and values, said Segal.

Theres a lot that we dont know about what risks Chinese-owned apps like TikTok pose to US citizens, since much of this information is considered classified American intelligence. But whether the risks are small or significant, the recent debates over what to do with TikTok and WeChat are part of what some are calling a new cold war between China and the US, with the US positioning itself as the moral leader upholding an internet that adheres to values of free speech, in contrast to the Chinese Communist Party, which regularly enforces strict censorship online.

Trump has accused ByteDance and other Chinese tech companies like WeChat of posing serious threats to US national security.

The concern is that TikTok could funnel American users personal data to the Chinese Communist Party, potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage, according to Trumps recent executive order. The order makes it illegal for any person or company in the US to do business with TikTok after September 20. If TikTok sells to a US company before then, the ban will no longer apply.

So whats actually going on? Its true that TikTok automatically collects reams of user data, including location and internet address, searching history within the app, and type of device being used, according to its privacy policy. But many other popular social media apps do this, too. (TikTok has said that it collects less data than its competitors, like Facebook and Google, because it doesnt track user activity across devices, which both companies do.)

Last month, a report found that TikTok was accessing users clipboard data and saving what people copy and paste. TikTok said this was an anti-spam measure and that its now stopped the practice. But TikTok wasnt the only app found accessing clipboard data; several other major apps, from ABC News to HotelTonight, were found to be accessing peoples clipboard data as well.

TikTok also sidestepped a privacy safeguard in Googles Android operating system to secretly track users MAC addresses, which are unique identifiers tied to peoples phones, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. TikTok seems to have stopped tracking these identifiers in November, the Journal reported.

But aside from the specifics of what TikTok does and doesnt track, politicians like Trump are worried that, ultimately, TikTok is beholden to the Chinese government. And the Chinese government has broad authority, significantly more so than the US government does, to snoop on users data as it pleases.

TikTok has repeatedly denied that it has or ever would give up user data to the Chinese government. The company says it stores American user data on servers in the US and Singapore, which ostensibly would make it harder for the Chinese government to tap into. The company has also taken measures to separate its US business overall from its Chinese parent company. For example, TikTok doesnt operate in China (the Chinese version of it, Douyin, does).

The CIA reportedly investigated TikToks security threat and found no proof that Chinese intelligence authorities have been snooping on Americans through TikTok, according to the New York Times. The agencys assessment still found that Chinese authorities could potentially tap into Americans data through the app, according to the Timess summary of the classified report. Thats why last December, the Department of Defense cautioned military personnel to delete TikTok from their smartphones over security concerns. And the Senate voted unanimously to ban federal employees from using TikTok on government devices last week.

Theres no publicly available evidence that TikTok has ever done anything wrong, said Segal, but the concern is that because the Chinese National Intelligence Law of 2017 says any Chinese company can be drafted into espionage, a company could be forced to hand over the data.

TikToks efforts to separate its US business from its parent companys Chinese operations are not enough to placate the growing intensity of anti-China hawks in Trumps administration. And there doesnt seem to be much TikTok can do other than sell to a US company like Microsoft, which is the frontrunner out of a few major US companies that are reportedly in talks to buy TikToks US operations.

A second area of concern is that apps like TikTok and WeChat censor content that the Chinese Communist Party disapproves of. On this front, there are more documented concerns, especially about WeChat.

WeChat has been found to intercept and censor political messages sent by Chinese users to US users. A report in May by Canadian researchers CitizenLab found that the app was blocking certain messages, including a political cartoon depicting the late Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, who was critical of the Chinese government. The report also found that WeChat was analyzing messages sent by international users, including those in the US, to scan for and block politically sensitive content before it could circulate among Chinese users.

With TikTok, there have been accusations without definitive proof of censorship at the behest of the Chinese government. Last year, internal company documents showed TikTok was instructing its staff to moderate content in line with the Chinese governments censorship of topics like the Tiananmen Square massacre and Free Tibet, according to leaked guidelines published by the Guardian. But these guidelines were part of broad rules against controversial discussions on international politics across countries, so theres no explicit proof that this was a directive from the Chinese government to TikTok. Another oft-cited concern about potential political censorship on TikTok is that during last years Hong Kong independence protests, there werent a lot of results for popular hashtags of the protest movement. But theres no proof that the company was actively censoring content or whether people just werent posting about it.

Its important to put all of this in context. TikTok and WeChats political troubles in the US dont exist in a vacuum, but rather inside a larger web of complex China-US politics. Since 2018, Trump has waged a trade war with China over free trade policies that he feels disadvantage US manufacturing. And increasingly, tech has become tangled up in this war, involving Chinese-owned dating apps, drone companies, and telecom hardware makers.

There is no bottom to the US-China relationship right now; it keeps getting worse and worse, Segal told Recode. The administration is looking for more and more ways to contain, hurt, and damage China.

And technology, which has helped dramatically strengthen the Chinese economy in the past few decades, is seen as one of the most important areas of competition.

Last August, as China and the US were escalating tit-for-tat tariff increases on imported goods from each country, Trump issued an executive order aimed at the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei over concerns that the company was a cybersecurity threat. Trump gave Huawei a partial death penalty in the US by putting it on an entity list barred from doing business with US companies.

Huawei is a big deal outside of the US. It sold 250 million phones last year thats more than Apple. So the Trump administrations effective ban had ripple effects. Google had to stop running its Android operating system on Huawei phones and killed its plans to build a smart speaker with the company. The US governments restrictions also rolled back Huaweis plan to manufacture equipment to build out a massive 5G internet network in the US, which the Trump administration worried the company could use to intercept data on behalf of the Chinese government. The US has since offered a reprieve to US companies, allowing them to work with Huawei through temporary licenses on setting 5G standards.

Even Chinese-owned dating apps have attracted the US governments attention. Last April, the US government undid a deal that had sold the popular dating app Grindr to Chinese owners, citing national security concerns. The decision came from a little-known government agency, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS), which reviews the national security risks of major transactions involving foreign corporations. CFIUS has similarly been reviewing the 2017 merger that led to TikToks creation, when ByteDance acquired the user base of the lip-syncing app Musical.ly and rebranded it as TikTok.

Some of the Trump administrations targets seem to pose a more obvious security threat: roaming drones that could be tapping video feeds and surveilling US turf. The Trump administration is reportedly considering issuing an executive order banning the Chinese drone manufacturer DJI, the most popular drone maker in the world, whose equipment is commonly used for military and rescue purposes. The US Department of the Interior has already grounded at least 800 DJI drones out of fear that the Chinese government could exploit them to spy on Americans. Last month, researchers found major flaws in DJIs security features, which collected large amounts of personal information that could be exploited by the Beijing government, according to the New York Times.

The consequences of these mounting tensions over Chinese-owned tech could have a number of side effects. An obvious possibility is that China could retaliate. The USs actions could also give other countries precedent to start cutting off their app markets from US companies for example, a European country could, citing privacy concerns, bar its citizens from accessing Facebook. Either would be bad for the US economy in the long run, said Bobby Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security law.

But, Chesney stressed, the US isnt making the first move here. American companies have long been banned in China, where companies that started off by building copycats of major US tech apps Baidu is Chinas answer to Google, Didi its Uber, Weibo its Twitter have grown into tech powerhouses. US social media companies have tried, unsuccessfully, to enter the Chinese market.

Good luck running Twitter in China, said Chesney. The playing field is very much not level in the other direction.

Trump has given both TikTok and WeChat a September 20 deadline before his executive orders will be enforced. If TikTok and WeChat dont follow these orders by then, their business operations could be fined $300,000 per violation, and willful offenders could face criminal charges. TikTok is reportedly planning to sue the administration over the legality of the order.

If TikTok sells its US operations to an American company in a manner thats approved by the Trump administration, it would steer clear of further regulation. The process of unwinding TikTok from its Chinese owner could be a messy process and take up to a year, according to a report from Reuters, but it would leave TikToks valuable US user base intact.

For WeChat, theres no such known escape (for now) from the regulatory crackdown because there are no publicly known potential US buyers. That could mean that some 19 million Americans who use the app will be cut off from it by the end of next month. Many US WeChat users use the app to communicate with family overseas in China, where many other communication apps like Skype and WhatsApp are blocked.

But regardless of what happens with WeChat and TikTok, the Trump-China tech war will likely continue. According to policy analysts, its hard to see a world in which Trump backs down from these escalating restrictions on the Chinese tech sector in the US. And even if Joe Biden wins the presidency, the Democratic candidate has still taken a notably tougher stance on China than in his earlier days in the Obama administration.

The Trump administration is picking new targets beyond TikTok and WeChat and the videoconferencing app Zoom, which has become nearly ubiquitous during the coronavirus pandemic, could be next. Though Zoom is an American company, it has faced criticism for routing some of its US calls through Chinese servers (Zoom said this was a mistake and is no longer routing free video calls in China). Politicians including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who referred to the company as a Chinese Entity, have warned of its security risks.

Several analysts told Recode that some of the concern about TikTok and other Chinese technology companies is valid. But the way the TikTok order in particular has been executed with Trump going back and forth on whether hed approve a TikTok-Microsoft sale, and at one point demanding a cut of the deal has been haphazard and has given the global business community a sense of distrust toward the US government.

The uncertainty has also impacted TikTok creators like Watts.

For these kids, its their whole life, said Watts of creators on TikTok. In recent weeks, she has put out videos attempting to calm her fans and fellow creators, who worry the app could be shut down overnight. Shes hopeful that Microsoft will reach a deal to buy TikTok. She said she understands the Trump administrations concern that TikTok could be used as a Chinese spy app but she isnt convinced.

Its not that I disagree, but I think theres a presumption of guilt without any proof, said Watts.

Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we werent sure how it would go. Today, were humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. Thats never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone wont let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.

Read the rest here:

Do TikTok really pose a threat to national security? Heres what we know. - Vox.com

Federalist publisher Ben Domenech highlighted the dangers of social media companies censoring President Trumps comments about kids being almost immune to Covid-19 on Media Buzz on Sunday, slamming Democratic strategist Joe Trippi for appearing to suggest Facebook and Twitter were right to take down clips of the presidents remarks.

The most concerning part of [this issue] is the aspect of Facebook and Twitter, major media outlets we do have to think of them as media entities taking down clips of the presidential interview, Domenech said. The people deserve to be able to hear what their president has to sayIt is extremely troubling to me that any kind of entity, especially one with the kind of power Facebook and Twitter have, would eliminate that type of interview from the public eye as if its something that needs to be shut down or eliminated from the conversation.

I think it is important for Facebook and Twitter and these social media when you start to use things like children are immune and that starts to move, theres a lot of damage that can be done from making that argument, Trippi responded.

Its problematic that that happened, he admitted of social media companies decision to take down Trumps comments. But there is a real question there when you have that kind of information flowing from the president of the United States.

Are you saying this is a good thing they took down what the president of the United States was saying? Domenech asked.

Thats not what I was saying. I was saying that I think its a good thing for this show to talk about, to have shows like this that talk about that because I think it is theres a big theres danger on both sides of what youre saying and what the president said, Trippi insisted.

In an Oval Office interview with Domenech in June, President Trump said he expects to be banned by Twitter before Election Day.

Watch Domenech and Trippis conversation here:

Elle Reynolds is an intern at the Federalist, and a senior at Patrick Henry College studying government and journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

View post:

Ben Domenech Clashes With Joe Trippi Over Censorship Of Trump's Social Media - The Federalist

Advertisement

Following the Clean Network Program initiative from theU.S. Department of State, the Trump administration further escalated its aggression against Chinese mobile applications, particularly WeChat and TikTok. On August 6, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order addressing the threat posed by WeChat. Accusing WeChat and TikTok of censoring political content and identifying them as potential vectors for disinformation campaigns, the Trump administration prohibited transactions related to WeChat by any person or property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States after 45 days.

There are many details yet to be released by U.S. officials about implementing the executive order. It remains unclear what actions are considered to be transactions. And the impact that the executive order will have on average WeChat users is also vague. But many view the order as a plan to ban WeChat from operating in the United States.

A petition calling the federal government not to ban WeChat has received 60,415 signatures as of August 10 While Chinese Americans can give up a leisure app among the many that exist, they cannot give up the only app linking them to their families in China, the petition argues. During this pandemic, WeChat plays an even more important role in helping families stay connected and updated.

Different from TikTok, most Americans are not familiar with WeChat, a mobile application developed by the Chinese company Tencent. A Statista Survey in 2018 shows that 87 percent of U.S. internet users have never used the application, and only 4 percent of the surveyed individuals use WeChat every day.

The majority of WeChat users in the United States, and other democratic countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, are Chinese-speaking immigrants with significant ties with the Peoples Republic of China. In other words, expanding on its success in China, WeChat arrived in the United States, Canada, and many other countries through immigration. The Chinese mobile application has shaped the Chinese communities in these countries significantly. Instead of searching through yellow pages, local community bulletin boards, and online forums, newcomers with language barriers can now find many services available through the application. From buying groceries to purchasing a property, WeChat can help.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Thus WeChat is more than a mobile application used to send messages to friends and relatives. It also includes functions to send and collect payments, as well as sharing words, pictures, and videos on your friends content feed.WeChat is a super app that covers the feature of several mobile applications that we are more familiar with.

While WeChat facilitates daily life for many of its users, the application is also involved in several significant issues. WeChat has not been able to successfully combat misinformation, fake news, and hateful messages, which are prevalent on the platform. Because WeChat posts target users who may have difficulties in reading local newspapers and conducting fact-check research, misinformation on WeChat from misinformation on drugs to fake news regarding COVID-19 is concerning and may cause more damage to democratic institutions.

Censorship from the Chinese government is the other significant problem facing WeChat. The Citizen Lab from the University of Toronto conducted in-depth research on WeChats efforts to use overseas data to boost its censorship apparatus. In addition to censoring articles, websites, and social media posts critical of the Chinese government, WeChat also stores, monitors, and intercepts messages in private conversations between individual users. With no protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, WeChat also became a tool for Chinese state media to reach out to the countrys overseas diaspora groups. While WeChat denies censorship allegations, numerous and robust evidence are suggesting otherwise.

Those issues are not only raising flags in the United States but also are recognized by other countries around the world. Canadas House of Commons directed members of parliament and staff not to use WeChat due to cybersecurity risks. Australian media The Canberra Times calls WeChat the channel for China disinformation campaigns.

The petition pleading with the U.S. government not to ban WeChat is right about one thing: WeChat is one of the few mobile applications that can be used by users both in and outside of China. But it would not be fair to blame the outsized impact of potentially banning WeChat on the Trump administration. Chinas Great Firewall prevents other messaging apps such as Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Telegram from operating in China. With its major competitors blocked in China, WeChat obtained unfair advantages by complying with Chinese government censorship and influence operations. WeChat is very unlikely to disobey orders and censorship requests from the Chinese government and that leaves other countries with limited options to regulate the mobile application.

While WeChat serves as a tool for people to connect through the Great Firewall, it does not exonerate the application from engaging in mass censorship and influence campaigns in the free world. Democratic countries, including the United States, must step up and investigate further options to maintain their democratic integrity while minimizing the cost and inconvenience that any proposed policies may bring to diaspora groups.

Original post:

The Logic of a US WeChat Ban - The Diplomat

SEATTLE, Washington In response to the continued suppression of internet freedom, including access to social media and online news sources by authoritarian regimes, a bipartisan group in the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a bill to expand global internet freedom. The Open Technology Fund Authorization Act would direct the nonprofit Open Technology Fund (OTF). OTF currently funds the creation of ways to counter censorship efforts by small tech groups. It develops technologies to skirt government censorship and enables people to access websites that their governments have blocked.

As House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. noted that the internet is a powerful tool to spread unbiased information to increasingly bigger audiences in countries without free press. This information could threaten the governments of these countries, which is why the internet is censored. The internet can be a key tool in the fight against tyranny.

According to House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the internet age has ushered in a new era of tyrannical governments exercising control over their citizens. Surveillance and censorship of the internet have become a growing trend in repressive regimes like China, Iran and North Korea. As a result, the U.S. Agency for Global Media has sought to expand internet freedom globally. By supporting projects that promote free communication on the internet and that counteract government censorship, censored countries can achieve internet freedom.

The bill confirms the need for the protection of internet freedom. Currently, more than two-thirds of people around the world live in countries where the internet is restricted. Authoritarian regimes spend billions of dollars every year on internet censorship and surveillance. Furthermore, the Chinese government not only restricts its own peoples access to the internet but it also exports technologies used for surveillance and censorship.

The purpose of the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act is to combat internet censorship and expand internet freedom globally. To do so, the Act would amend the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 by adding Sec. 309A Open Technology Fund. This new section would make yearly grants available for the purpose of supporting unrestricted access to uncensored sources of information via the internet. This would empower journalists to produce and spread the news and allow their audiences to receive such information.

This act would establish the Open Technology Fund (OTF), a grantee entity which shall carry out the provisions of this section. The mission of the OTF will be to promote freedom of the press and unrestricted internet access overseas. To sum up the goal of the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act, Representative Engel explained, If a repressive regime builds a wall [around the internet], the OTF is working to build an even taller ladder.

Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX-10] introduced the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 2020. The bill has six cosponsors (3R, 3D). The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and is currently in the first stage of the legislative process.

Limiting and blocking access to the internet is a tactic of authoritarian regimes. According to Rep. McCaul, Knowledge is power, which is why information blocking has long been a hallmark of oppression. Oppressive governments censor the internet in order to maintain their grip on power. The Open Technology Fund Authorization Act would thus empower and enable people around the world to utilize the internet to further their own welfare and human rights.

Sarah FrazerPhoto: Unsplash

The rest is here:

Open Technology Fund Authorization Act - BORGEN - Borgen Project