Encryption Software Market Size, Development Status, Emerging Technologies, Future Plans and Trends by Forecast 2023 – Daily Research Chronicles

Market Research Future published a research report on Encryption Software Market Research Report- Global Forecast 2023 Market Analysis, Scope, Stake, Progress, Trends and Forecast to 2023.

Global Encryption Software Market: Synopsis

The detailed report published by Market Research Future (MRFR) projects that the global encryption software market is marked to expand remarkably at a CAGR 24% during the forecast period of 2017-2023 and reach the market valuation of USD 13 Bn by the end of the assessment period. Increased incidences of data theft in small to large scale organizations, rise in demand for advanced data security solutions, increased emphasis on software development for optimizing various business processes and increased awareness regarding the data security are majorly propelling the growth of the global encryption software market. Rapid industrialization and high demand for encryption in various industrial sectors such as government, healthcare, aerospace and defense, and others are also fueling the growth of the global encryption software market during the assessment period.

Get Sample of Report @https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/sample_request/3125

Key Players:

Some of the prime players profiled by Market Research Future (MRFR) that are operating in the global encryption software market are Microsoft Corporation (the U.S.), Sophos Ltd. (the U.S.), CheckPoint Software Technologies Ltd. (Israel)., Trend Micro Inc. (Japan), Symantec Corporation (the U.S.), IBM Corporation (the U.S.), SAS Institute Inc. (the U.S.), Intel Security Group (McAfee) (the U.S.), EMC Corporation (the U.S.), and WinMagic Inc. (Canada).

Global Encryption Software Market: Segmental Analysis

The globalEncryption Software Markethas been segmented on the basis of deployment, service, organization size, application and vertical. Based on deployment, the global encryption software market has been segmented into cloud and on-premise. Based on service, the global encryption software market has been segmented into professional service and managed service. Based on organization size, the global encryption software market has been segmented into small & medium enterprises and large enterprises. Based on application, the global encryption software market has been segmented into disk encryption, file/folder encryption, communication encryption, database encryption, and cloud encryption. Based on vertical, the global encryption software market has been segmented into healthcare, government & public sector, it & telecommunication, BSFI, retail, aerospace & defense, and others.

Global Encryption Software Market: Regional Analysis

Geographically, the global encryption software market has been segmented into four major regions such as Asia Pacific (APAC), North America, Europe, and the rest of the world. The North America region commands the highest share of the global encryption software market owing to the rapid technological advancement, easy adoption of advanced technology, increased rate of cybercrime, and rise in adoption of encryption solutions for data security by preventing unauthorized access to the data and company information in this region. The encryption software in the Asia Pacific region is projected to expand at the fastest growth rate during the assessment period owing to the high demand for advanced security solutions in small to large scale enterprises, rapid industrial development, increased rate of data theft and cybercrime, and proliferation in IT companies as a part of process outsourcing in this region. Rapid adoption of advanced technology, high demand for data security solutions and increased development of advanced encryption software that can provide innovative data security services are majorly fueling the growth of the encryption software market in the Europe region.

Get Complete Report @https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/encryption-software-market-3125

Intended Audience

About Us:

At Market Research Future (MRFR), we enable our customers to unravel the complexity of various industries through our Cooked Research Report (CRR), Half-Cooked Research Reports (HCRR), Raw Research Reports (3R), Continuous-Feed Research (CFR), and Market Research & Consulting Services.

Visit link:
Encryption Software Market Size, Development Status, Emerging Technologies, Future Plans and Trends by Forecast 2023 - Daily Research Chronicles

The Week in Ransomware – July 17th 2020 – Freshly squeezed – BleepingComputer

With Twitter hackers, 10/10 vulnerabilities, and Cloudflare outages this week, thankfully ransomware has been pretty slow this week.

The biggest news is Orange confirming they were hit with a Nefilim ransomware attack and business customer's data being stolen. We also saw an interesting ransomware that utilizes the Age encryption tool.

Other than that, it has mostly been smaller attackers and new ransomware variants released.

Contributors and those who provided new ransomware information and stories this week include: @demonslay335, @VK_Intel, @struppigel, @malwrhunterteam, @fwosar, @BleepinComputer, @LawrenceAbrams, @Seifreed, @serghei, @DanielGallagher, @PolarToffee, @FourOctets, @jorntvdw, @Ionut_Ilascu, @malwareforme, @JakubKroustek, @xiaopao80087499, @fbgwls245, @Amigo_A_, @campuscodi, and @360TotalSec.

xiaopaofound a new Matrix Ransomware variant that appends the .AL8P extension and drops a ransom note namedReadme_AL8P.rtf.

dnwls0719 found a new FonixCrypter variant that appends the.XINOF extension.

A new and targeted ransomware named AgeLocker utilizes the 'Age' encryption tool created by a Google employee to encrypt victim's files.

Michael Gillespiefound a new STOP Ransomware variant that appends the .repl extension to encrypted files.

Jakub Kroustekfound two new variants of the Dharma Ransomware that append either the .data or .smpl extensionto encrypted files.

The data theft and name-and-shame tactics initiated by Maze in November 2019 and subsequently adopted by multiple other groups have blurred the line between ransomware attack and data breach.

Michael Gillespiefound a new Makop Ransomware variant that appends the .zbw extension and drops a ransom note namedreadme-warning.txt.

Michael Gillespie is looking for a new ransomware that appends the .FastWind extension and drops a ransom note named ransomware.txt.

Recently, 360 Security Center has detected that a file encryption virus in the form of a hoax has appeared on the network. In view of the encrypted file suffix of the virus is named .flowEncryption, we named it flowEncryption file encryption virus.

Orange has confirmed to BleepingComputer that they suffered a ransomware attack exposing the data of twenty of their enterprise customers.

Michael Gillespiefound a new Makop Ransomware variant that appends the .BNFD extension to encrypted files.

Blackbaud, a provider of software and cloud hosting solutions, said it stopped a ransomware attack from encrypting files earlier this year but still had to pay a ransom demand anyway after hackers stole data from the company's network and threatened to publish it online.

Michael Gillespiefound a new Dharma Ransomware variant that appends the .spareextension to encrypted files.

Michael Gillespiefound a new Maoloa Ransomware variant that appends the .Globeimposter-Alpha865qqzextension to encrypted files.

Michael Gillespiefound a new STOP Ransomware variant that appends the .kuusextension to encrypted files.

Originally posted here:
The Week in Ransomware - July 17th 2020 - Freshly squeezed - BleepingComputer

What Is Shadow Banning & Why Are TikTokers Complaining About It? – Refinery29

In 2018, Republicans and conservatives cried shadow banarguingsocial media platforms were out to get them, using aVice News storythat said thatTwitter limited the visibility of Republicans. (Shortly after, Twitterreleased a statementexplaining that abughad affected not just Republicans, but many users for a short period of time before it was fixed.) But that didnt keep Donald Trump from hopping on the bandwagon.

The fires of suspicion were stoked once again after a Twitter hack that affected the likes of Elon Musk and Bill Gates. In reporting the hack,Motherboard shared screenshotsthat showed how the hack was executed. The screenshot showed how, internally, Twitter tags certain accounts as"Trend Blacklist" or "Search Blacklist"to mark accounts that have violated community guidelines and have been restricted from appearing in trending pages and searches, respectively. Like in 2018, Trump supporters took this as proof that Twitter is shadow banning them, but as Motherboard puts it: "VICE's traffic tools show tweets by conservatives linking to our article, saying the screenshots we published reveal a shadowban conspiracy, are leading thousands of viewers to our site."

Originally posted here:

What Is Shadow Banning & Why Are TikTokers Complaining About It? - Refinery29

Twitter ‘Blacklists’ Lead the Company Into Another Trump Supporter Conspiracy – VICE

IMAGE VIA FLICKR USERANDREAS ELDH

On Wednesday, the greatest engine for bad takes on the internet screeched to a halt, briefly, as a far reaching hack and cryptocurrency scam hijacked many popular accounts, some with millions of followers like Bill Gates, Barack Obama, and Elon Musk.

In its effort to contain the damage, Twitter took the drastic step of temporarily disabling every verified Twitter account's ability to post, the logic being that if no verified account can post, not many people would be able to share the scam, even if they were hacked. For a moment, the blue checkmark crowdjournalists, celebrities, politicians, brandswere unable to tweet, and the unverified masses did little but hilariously celebrate their inability to tweet. It was a rare moment of true levity on the platform.

Then Twitter began fixing the problem, allowed everyone to tweet freely again, and the bad takes came roaring back. Most tiresome and toxic among them is the notion, held mostly by conservatives and Trump supporters, that Twitter was silencing them through the use of "blacklists." In reality, what we saw is Republicans stomping their feet at bare minimum, common sense moderation tools, a reaction that Twitter could probably mitigate in the future by being fully transparent about how its platform, and specifically its moderation tools, work.

This latest round of performed victimhood is based on screenshots Motherboard published in a story about the Twitter hack. According to our sources, and later confirmed by Twitter, hackers were able to take over accounts by "social engineering" of a Twitter employee, which gave them access to an internal tool. With this tool, the hackers were able to reset emails associated with the accounts and take them over.

The screenshots Motherboard published showed that, internally, some Twitter accounts are tagged as "Trends Blacklist" or "Search Blacklist." These are incredibly charged terms among conservatives, mostly because of a misleading 2018 tweet from Donald Trump which wrongly claimed Twitter was "shadow banning" prominent Republicans.

As we wrote after Trump's tweet, since the early days of the web, a shadow ban has been a moderation technique used to ban people from forums or message boards without alerting them that theyve been banned. Typically, this means that a user can continue posting as normal, but their posts will be hidden from the rest of the community. The Twitter blacklists shown in screenshots we published do not prevent a user's followers or even the general public from seeing their tweets, but accounts put on these blacklists will be prevented from showing up on Twitter's "trending" page and will prevent them from showing up in search results.

Twitter explained this moderation tactic in 2018, after Trump's tweet. Twitter said it made changes to how it ranks its search results for accounts from what it considers to be "bad-faith actors who intend to manipulate or divide the conversation." A Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard on the phone that these blacklists are the same ones it explained in 2018 (though it didn't use the term "blacklist" at the time and has not used that word publicly.)

"We have very clear rules around trends and what we don't allow to trend," a Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard when asked about the "Blacklist" tags we see in screenshots of the internal moderation tool. Twitter also directed us to its "Twitter trends FAQs" page, where it makes clear the platform prevents content from trending if it contains profanity or adult/graphic reference, incites hate, or otherwise violates Twitter's rules.

Reached by phone, a Twitter spokesperson said the blacklist tags are "not new."

"We do disclose in this FAQ that accounts that violate the rules are prevented from trending," the spokesperson said. "This isnt new and its not something that has been hidden, but its in the help center."

The Blacklist tags we see here are intended to prevent accounts that share hateful or graphic content, for example, from trending or appearing in search.

While this will be and already has become a major conservative talking point, we know for a fact conservatives are not being "silenced" or "shadow banned" because VICE's traffic tools show tweets by conservatives linking to our article, saying the screenshots we published reveal a shadow ban conspiracy, are leading thousands of viewers to our site.

People who are buying into a Twitter conspiracy are not completely wrong to be worried, however. While Twitter has explained before that these blacklists exist and the types of accounts that might get put on one, it does not alert users if they've been put onto a blacklist. It has not used the term "blacklist" publicly in this context, a term more loaded than "Twitter filters search results for quality tweets and results." ("Twitter may automatically remove accounts engaging in [rule breaking] behaviors from search" is a bit closer.) It has not explained if the blacklists are automated, administered by human moderators, or a mix of both, and it has not been specific about how or why an account it put on a "Trends Blacklist" or "Search Blacklist."

Earlier this month, a Twitter engineer led a charge within the company to make the code Twitter uses more inclusive; "blacklist" will become "denylist," and Twitter will stop using "Master/Slave" terminology as well.

We can't say with 100 percent certainty how the "Blacklist" tags work because we don't have full visibility into Twitter's moderation mechanism. We can see its public facing policy, but not debates inside the company, and more critically, the technical process by which accounts are suspended, banned, or prevented from appearing in search.

This opacity creates a situation where a devastating lapse in Twitter's security leads to a leaked image of an internal panel that contains the word "Blacklist," which Twitter doesn't use when talking about moderation, and which sounds more sinister than it is. For years, academics, journalists, and, yes, conservatives, have been demanding more transparency; these are the kinds of scandals that happen when a company's internal language is different from its carefully crafted blog posts and announcements.

By signing up to the VICE newsletter you agree to receive electronic communications from VICE that may sometimes include advertisements or sponsored content.

Read the original here:

Twitter 'Blacklists' Lead the Company Into Another Trump Supporter Conspiracy - VICE

New paper calls on Instagram to do more to protect women and vulnerable users online – City, University of London

A new paper from City, University of London argues that Instagrams algorithm is censoring women and vulnerable users but doing little to stop abusers.

The paper, How Instagrams algorithm is censoring women and vulnerable users but helping online abusers, which was published in Feminist Media Studies, argues that Instagrams algorithm censors female accounts for showing skin and nudity out of fear that it promotes or facilitates prostitution.

Accounts regularly affected range from sex workers to carnival dancers and athletes, who have had their posts deleted or hidden by Instagram.

The censoring includes shadow banning, where accounts and posts are hidden from the explore or search functions of the platform. In most cases, users are not notified that they have been shadow banned and only notice when their content engagement decreases.

Written by Carolina Are, PhD Candidate and Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, the paper argues that Instagram then fails to protect some of those same users from online harassment such as cyber flashing the unsolicited sending of explicit photos to other users via Bluetooth or direct message and trolling, showing a bias against certain accounts.

Carolina Are, PhD Candidate and Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Sociology

From her research, Carolina calls on Instagram to do more in checking accounts that claim to have been censored or harassed, callout unfair moderation practices whether that be censorship or harassment and provide better moderation through help or report a problem features.

Harassment has emotional, psychological and economic costs for victims, making women stop contributing to online spaces and cutting them off from work and/or public life, says Carolina.

The same platforms that were going to give them a voice are also giving users new opportunities to harass, insult and silence them, she continues.

Carolinas research goes further in identifying that Instagrams algorithm discriminates against women, seen where female users have increased engagement rates when changing their profile gender to male.

As a pole dancing instructor, Carolina has experienced Instagrams shadow banning first hand, preventing people in those industries from reaching bigger audiences or finding work.

Instagram's algorithm

Another affected group is sex workers, who are seeing a safe space to advertise their work and a source of income such as social media platforms being taken away from them.

Carolina said: Social media platforms have become a form of civic space. Because of this, platforms need to be held accountable about their biases, and they need to be more transparent about the rules that govern them.

I have witnessed hateful comments and the lack of moderation surrounding them driving women off platforms and having to deal with their traumatic consequences without support.

It is not sustainable for large parts of Instagrams user population to continue being silenced by and targeted with abuse on social media.

If social media architecture is kept as it is, offline inequalities may become even greater online, and the value that social media platforms could provide to our society will be lost.

Read the full paper: How Instagrams algorithm is censoring women and vulnerable users but helping online abusers, published in Feminist Media studies.

For more information at Sociology at City see here.

Visit link:

New paper calls on Instagram to do more to protect women and vulnerable users online - City, University of London

US Senator wants answers from Dorsey on Twitter breach that appears to be inside job – The Sociable

On the day of what appears to be the largest breach in Twitters history, US Senator Josh Hawley pens an open letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asking him to explain what happened as fingers point to Twitter employees involved in the scam.

.@jack @Twitter work with the FBI and DOJ to secure your platform. Now. Then give the public an accounting of how much of their personal info you lost today pic.twitter.com/Yn2q4Yr8Xx

Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) July 16, 2020

Yesterday, high profile accounts on Twitter were compromised and taken over in an apparent bitcoin-related scam, although the full scale of the attack has yet to be publicly assessed.

The Twitter accounts affected by the breach included those of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and others.

On Wednesday Senator Hawley called on Twitter to work with the FBI and DOJ to better secure its platform and asked that Dorsey answer the following questions:

Shortly after Twitter acknowledged the security incident all blue-checked accounts were temporarily suspended from tweeting on Wednesday evening.

In a bizarre turn of events, Joseph Cox wrote in Motherboard that the bitcoin heist was allegedly made possible by a Twitter employee who helped the scammers pull it off.

Cox wrote that Motherboard was in contact with two sources who took over accounts, with one source declaring, We used a rep that literally done all the work for us.

The second source said that the Twitter employee was paid to take over the high profile accounts.

Backing up these claims, Twitter issued a statement saying that it believes some of its employees with access to internal systems and tools were successfully targeted.

We detected what we believe to be a coordinated social engineering attack by people who successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools.

Twitter Support (@TwitterSupport) July 16, 2020

Statements from the anonymous sources, along with screenshots obtained by Motherboard,suggest that Twitter employees on the inside were able to access the high-profile accounts using an internal tool at Twitter.

Screenshots of the alleged internal tool, if proven to be authentic, raise even more alarm bells about the inner workings of the platform.

The screenshots showed colored buttons, on two of which were written, Trends Blacklist and Search Blacklist.

Twitter has long claimed not to shadow ban, and the public isnt privy to what exact trends and searches may be blacklisted, but seeing buttons for blacklisting trends and searches is concerning to many users with serious questions about the platforms integrity.

I cant post the linked screenshots from Twitters admin panel but I have to ask

What is search blacklist and trends blacklist pic.twitter.com/f6DAw3zzqu

Tim Pool (@Timcast) July 16, 2020

Twitter tells you straight up, We do not shadow ban, but Twitter admits to making content more difficult to find, which in my opinion sounds like a part of shadowbanning.

You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly dont shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology, reads a Twitterblog post from 2018(emphasis mine).

We caught a Twitter software engineer RED HANDED when he admitted that Twitter #ShadowBans to our undercover journalist. Twitter will never admit it: its a lot of bad press if, like, people figure out that youre like shadow banning them. Its like, unethical in some way. pic.twitter.com/MmBGKohWLj

James OKeefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) July 26, 2018

Wednesdays Twitter breach exposed not only how vulnerable the platform is and how its own employees could compromise the account of a presidential candidate, but that Twitter may also have been misleading the public about its policies with questions arising over blacklistings.

Symptoms of shadowbanning on social media for your diagnosis

Twitter acknowledges security incident as high profile accounts reportedly hacked in bitcoin-related scam

Read the original here:

US Senator wants answers from Dorsey on Twitter breach that appears to be inside job - The Sociable

TikTok Shadowbanned: What It Is, Examples, & How to Get Unshadowbanned – Screen Rant

TikTok shadowbans are a nightmare scenario every creator wants to avoid. Fortunately, they're avoidable and reversible if you're dedicated.

The concept of being "shadowbanned" onTikTok is a frequent topic of debate because there are varying definitions of what it is, how to tell if it's happening, and what to do to correct it. Online forums and other media platforms have been accused of shadowbanning users for years before TikTok, but the term is seeing a revival right now because of its connection to such a popular app. Despite it being a common idea, no one can confirm that it's actually real.

The most common definition of a shadowban on TikTok is when an account abruptly stops receiving views, likes, and traffic from the For You page. Users feel that if they'd had success previously, and that success suddenly dries up, it's a result of TikTok's algorithm choosing to surface their content less often. That, of course, sounds like a punishment, leading most TikTok users to conclude that shadowbanning is a reaction to objectionable content that violates the platform's rules.

Related:TikTok Removed 49 Million Videos In Six Months For Violating Rules

The problem with this idea is that it's wholly illogical. If TikTok, or any platform, found a user's posts to be in clear violation of its terms, it would be in the service's best interest to issue a formal warning or suspension. There are countless stories of people's YouTube channels being demonetized, for example. While it's demonstrably true that a TikToker's views and engagement can take sudden dives, it's more likely due to the performance of the creator's recent content. TikTok is probably not secretly wanting to ban you, but refraining from doing so.

Obviously, there's no proof that shadowbanning is or isn't real, but the best indicators that it's simply a myth based on people's misunderstanding of social media marketing and algorithms are the proposed solutions. Every reasonable solution to shadowbanning is some version of advice to improve your content's reach. For example, the most common, specific tip you'll find doing a Google search on how to get un-shadowbanned will be to go into your TikTok account settings and tap "Switch to a Pro Account". The reason given is that it allows you to see analytics for your posts, and find out how people are accessing your videos.

That's essentially online marketing 101. If you have trouble getting eyes on your work, figure out the avenues through which to get a larger audience. Another common tip is to refrain from making potentially objectionable content. If you often make videos that might trigger users or promote things that could be harmful, many people feel that could lead to a shadowban. However, those also happen to be things that could make a channel unlikable, too. Logically speaking, making videos people find unpleasant or unentertaining will probably not get you likes, which will affect your For You performance and compromise views.

Therefore, if you're concerned that your TikTok account was shadowbanned, consider revamping your content approach. Use Pro mode to get more insight into the areas in which you're lacking. Consider making more thematically similar videos so that if people like one video, they might enjoy the next one because it's in a similar category. The For You page also rewards videos with a similar theme, since that's one of the metrics it uses to determine its recommendations. Ultimately, whether shadowbans are real or not, the goal for a creator should be to get familiar with the algorithm and make consistently entertaining content. Don't be discouraged by an unprovable myth.

More:How TikTok's Algorithm Recommends Videos (& Its Limitations) Explained

Falcon & Winter Soldier No Longer Releasing On Disney+ In August

Hubert has been a journalist in spirit since age six, and can't see any good reasons to argue with that, so here we are. He spends most of his days working to leave the world a better place than it was when he showed up and trying to be better at Street Fighter.

The rest is here:

TikTok Shadowbanned: What It Is, Examples, & How to Get Unshadowbanned - Screen Rant

TikTok Is Wonderful. I Still Dont Want It on My Phone. – The New York Times

I confess: I have a TikTok-designated burner phone.

The short-video sharing service sucked me in immediately with its algorithmically perfect cascade of videos that has been designed to entertain me for forever.

I marvel at how smoothly it works. I am even more gobsmacked by the creativity on display by many kinds of people, both professional entertainers and just regular folks (and not just teenagers).

It is perhaps the best social media with an emphasis on media network to come along in quite a while. Simply put, it is a wonderful tech product.

Just recently: The shoe-jumping people. The superhero suit-switching guy. Fabulous lesbian pairs like Madison Bailey and Mariah Linney. The chai-making-judging stylings of Kevin Wilson, he of the perpetually raised eyebrow. And of course, the comic Sarah Coopers epic and eviscerating Trump translating.

TikTok, of course, has many of the problems that plague other social media platforms: the haters, the liars, the toxic posters. But it is for now one of the better places to spend time online, compared with other similar services.

Still, I dont want TikTok on my main iPhone. The reason is obvious to most people who have been paying attention to the news of late: I worry about security and surveillance because TikTok is owned by a Chinese company (called ByteDance).

In some ways, I feel stupid revving up my Google Pixel to use one app since there is no proof of nefarious behavior by TikTok. And many American tech companies whose services live on my mobile phone are, lets be honest, data thieves themselves.

But while the efforts by U.S. companies to suck up personal data and turn it into revenue are ongoing, the many tech firms operating in China can be influenced and even controlled by the Chinese government. With quite a lot of confidential information on my phone, I have become extra wary.

Let me be clear: I am not faux indignant with a Mike Pompeo-level of alarm about TikTok. The secretary of state recently made one of this administrations typically disingenuous threats that it might move to ban the app for security reasons, while also referencing actions taken against other Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE.

TikTok pushed back, noting after the Pompeo barb that the company has an American chief executive and hundreds of key leaders based in the United States.

We have no higher priority than promoting a safe and secure app experience for our users, a TikTok representative said in a statement. We have never provided user data to the Chinese government, nor would we do so if asked. Though small, with only 35 people on staff, TikTok has also leaned into significantly upgrading its lobbying forces in Washington.

That makes sense since the anti-TikTok sentiment is gaining steam in the capital. Aside from Mr. Pompeos bluster, there is a Republican bill in Congress pushed by Senator Josh Hawley to ban the app on federal phones, and many companies have also expressed worries about its use on corporate phones. There is also a previous and continuing effort spearheaded by Senator Marco Rubio for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to look more closely at the 2017 acquisition by ByteDance of Musical.ly, which later became TikTok.

Democrats have also begun to pile on, backing an effort to look into further violations by TikTok of the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act, asking regulators to investigate whether the company has since breached a previous $5.7 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over the illegal collection of childrens personal data.

TikTok is also getting flack abroad, such as a recent move by India in a sweeping banning of 59 Chinese apps, noting they posed threats to the countrys sovereignty and security.

The obvious problem for TikTok is a backdrop of heinous digital surveillance practices by the Chinese government, in its country and elsewhere, sometimes to quash internal dissent and control its population, and sometimes to get a leg up on technology by swiping it. Theres no doubt the Chinese government can control tech firms in China and has been active in disinformation campaigns on social networks.

But, aside from the data collection that resulted in the F.T.C. settlement (a relatively common type of violation), it is still unproven that TikTok is doing what its detractors are alleging. The company has been adamant that it stores U.S. user data in the United States, with back up in Singapore. And then there are complicated tech issues related to mobile phones, which were best expressed by the tech analyst Ben Thompson in a recent post on his Stratchery blog: Banning TikTok because it is surreptitiously stealing your email doesnt make technical sense.

But he also pointed out that TikTok notes in its privacy policy that we may share your information with a parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of our corporate group.

In other words, just because TikTok doesnt grab your personal information now does not mean it will not or might not be compelled to do so in the future. (TikTok says such legal language is standard.)

As for Chinas increasingly aggressive application of its unconscionable national intelligence law, sources with knowledge of the company tell me TikTok is not bound to it due to its unusual corporate structure. The app, by the way, is unavailable in China itself.

There are also worries about censorship, since many things have been disallowed on the app. And, of course, Chinese influence over users. The point, though, is not just censorship, but its inverse: propaganda, Mr. Thompson wrote. TikToks algorithm, unmoored from the constraints of your social network or professional content creators, is free to promote whatever videos it likes, without anyone knowing the difference.

Hes right about the concerns and how they will only grow, which is why TikTok needs to take care, as its popularity explodes, to not fritter away a good thing.

Theres one way to make the companys claims of safety stick. TikToks recent hiring of a well-regarded former Disney executive, Kevin Mayer, as chief executive is a flashing signal that the company is likely to spin off of ByteDance as a U.S. company. Going public in America could mean definitively breaking its chains to the Chinese government and perhaps be the best possible answer to the companys critics. That would also give TikTok its best shot at becoming a formidable competitor to Facebook.

That would be a good thing, removing the shadow cast by the Chinese government and reassuring users like me who wait in anticipation of Sarah Coopers next Trumptastic video.

But until that day, Im keeping her, the Donald and TikTok on my burner phone.

See more here:

TikTok Is Wonderful. I Still Dont Want It on My Phone. - The New York Times

Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027 – BBC News

The UK's mobile providers are being banned from buying new Huawei 5G equipment after 31 December, and they must also remove all the Chinese firm's 5G kit from their networks by 2027.

Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden told the House of Commons of the decision.

It follows sanctions imposed by Washington, which claims the firm poses a national security threat - something Huawei denies.

Mr Dowden said the supply ban would delay the UK's 5G rollout by a year.

The technology promises faster internet speeds and the capacity to support more wireless devices, which should be a boon to everything from mobile gaming to higher-quality video streams, and even in time driverless cars that talk to each other. 5G connections are already available in dozens of UK cities and towns, but coverage can be sparse.

Mr Dowden added that the cumulative cost of the moves when coupled with earlier restrictions announced against Huawei would be up to 2bn, and a total delay to 5G rollout of "two to three years".

"This has not been an easy decision, but it is the right one for the UK telecoms networks, for our national security and our economy, both now and indeed in the long run," he said.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Because the US sanctions only affect future equipment, the government has been advised there is no security justification for removing 2G, 3G and 4G equipment supplied by Huawei.

However, when swapping out the company's masts, networks are likely to switch to a different vendor to provide the earlier-generation services.

Huawei said the move was "bad news for anyone in the UK with a mobile phone" and threatened to "move Britain into the digital slow lane, push up bills and deepen the digital divide."

The action, however, does not affect Huawei's ability to sell its smartphones to consumers or how they will run.

China's ambassador to the UK said the decision was "disappointing and wrong".

"It has become questionable whether the UK can provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory business environment for companies from other countries," tweeted Liu Xiaoming.

But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo welcomed the news, saying: "The UK joins a growing list of countries from around the world that are standing up for their national security by prohibiting the use of untrusted, high-risk vendors."

New restrictions will also apply to use of the company's broadband kit.

Operators are being told they should "transition away" from purchasing new Huawei equipment for use in full-fibre networks, ideally within the next two years.

Mr Dowden said the government would "embark on a short technical consultation" with industry leaders about this.

He explained that the UK needed to avoid becoming dependent on Nokia - which is currently the only other supplier used for some equipment - and he wanted to avoid "unnecessary delays" to the government's gigabit-for-all by 2025 pledge.

BT's Openreach division told the BBC it had in fact recently struck a deal to buy full-fibre network kit from a new supplier - the US firm Adtran - but first deliveries would only start in 2021.

The UK last reviewed Huawei's role in its telecoms infrastructure in January, when it was decided to let the firm remain a supplier but introduced a cap on its market share.

But in May the US introduced new sanctions designed to disrupt Huawei's ability to get its own chips manufactured. The Trump administration claims that Huawei provides a gateway for China to spy on and potentially attack countries that use its equipment, suggestions the company strongly rejects.

The sanctions led security officials to conclude they could no longer assure the security of its products if the company had to start sourcing chips from third-parties for use in its equipment.

The minister cited a review carried out by GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre as being the motivation for the changes.

NCSC has said Huawei products adapted to use third-party chips would be "likely to suffer more security and reliability problems".

But other political considerations are also likely to have also come into play, including the UK's desire to strike a trade deal with the US, and growing tensions with China over its handling of the coronavirus outbreak and its treatment of Hong Kong.

Some backbench Tory MPs had pressed for a shorter time-span for its removal, in particular there had been calls for the 5G ban to come into effect before the next election in May 2024.

However, Mr Dowden said that "the shorter we make the timetable for removal, the greater the risk of actual disruption to mobile phone networks".

BT and Vodafone had warned that customers could face mobile blackouts if they were forced to remove all of Huawei's 5G kit in less time.

Labour's shadow technology minister Chi Onwurah said the government was incapable of sorting "this mess out on their own".

It had "refused to face reality" and been "incomprehensively negligent" in allowing matters to get to this point, she added, and a taskforce of experts now needed to be created.

Hopes on the part of government that this decision may put the Huawei issue to bed may be optimistic.

The reason that we are here again despite a decision in January is because one of the key players - the US - played a new card in the form of sanctions.

And there is still time between now and legislation coming to parliament in Autumn for others to do the same - whether Conservative backbenchers or Beijing.

In the long run, many countries will be watching carefully how China reacts.

Will it feel it needs to punish the UK in order to discourage others from following its lead on 5G? Or will it want to avoid being seen as a bully and prefer to try and influence the decision more subtly? Whatever the case, the Huawei story in the UK is not over yet.

Huawei says it employs about 1,600 people in the UK and claims to be one of Britain's largest sources of investment from China.

The firm - whose shares are not publicly traded - does not provide a regional breakdown of its earnings. But on Monday, it announced a 13% rise in sales for the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019, totalling 454bn yuan ($64.8bn; 51.3bn).

The UK will have accounted for a fraction of that. The firm's UK chief recently noted that Huawei had only deployed a total of 20,000 5G base stations - the radio receiver/transmitter equipment fitted to a mast - in the UK so far. By contrast it expects to deliver a total of 500,000 globally this year.

Even so, what the firm fears and Washington hopes is that other countries will now follow Westminster's lead with bans of their own.

Despite there seeming little chance of a U-turn, Huawei said it was still urging UK ministers to reconsider.

"We will conduct a detailed review of what today's announcement means for our business here and will work with the UK government to explain how we can continue to contribute to a better connected Britain," spokesman Ed Brewster said.

Shortly before the announcement Sky News revealed that Lord Browne, Huawei's UK chairman and the ex-chief executive of BP, would be leaving the Chinese company before his term had expired. It said he had given his notice a few days ago and would formally step down in September.

Lord Browne had led efforts to improve the company's image in the UK and had tried to prevent a ban.

"He has been central to our commitment here dating back 20 years, and we thank him for his valuable contribution," said Huawei, confirming the report.

BT is set to be the telecoms operator most affected by the decision given it runs both the EE mobile network and Openreach, which provides fixed-line infrastructure to individual internet providers.

"We need to further analyse the details and implications of this decision before taking a view of potential costs and impacts," it said.

The move should, however, benefit Nokia and Ericsson, which are the two other main 5G kit vendors.

"We have the capacity and expertise to replace all of the Huawei equipment in the UK's networks at scale and speed... with minimal impact on the people using our customers' networks," said Nokia.

Ericsson added: "Today's decision removes the uncertainty that was slowing down investment decisions around the deployment of 5G in the UK... and we stand ready to work with the UK operators to meet their timetable."

However, both firms manufacture some of their 5G equipment in China, which has also caused concern in Washington.

In June, the US Department of Defense published a list of 20 companies it claimed had close ties to the Chinese military.

It included Panda Electronics - the firm with which Ericsson jointly runs a manufacturing facility in the Chinese city of Nanjing.

"A lot of companies assemble equipment or have some type of manufacturing in China," Ericsson's head of corporate communications Peter Olofsson told the BBC, when asked about this.

"Our trade compliance people have looked at this [list] and they concluded that it's not something that has an impact on Ericsson or our operations."

Ultimately Huawei believes that this was a political decision and not a business one.

And if the political winds change, then Huawei's fortunes may too.

My understanding is that a longer time frame for the removal of its 5G kit from UK networks was a relatively desirable outcome for Huawei.

So even though no new Huawei UK equipment can be bought by UK mobile carriers after the end of this year, the fact that the UK has until 2027 to remove Huawei's 5G kit from all of its network could be seen as a potential positive.

A new US administration in November could markedly change Washington's position on Huawei.

So for Huawei, playing the long game makes sense.

And one thing that was crystal clear to me from meeting Ren Zhengfei, the company's founder is that he's a fighter.

Nothing he has said indicates he is willing to give up.

For now though, the immediate impact of the UK decision will be seen as a signal that Washington's campaign on Huawei has worked.

And the Chinese firm will not want that replicated in other countries around the world.

Read the original post:

Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027 - BBC News

Olympics: IOC boss Thomas Bach reluctant to hold Tokyo Games behind closed doors – The Straits Times

LAUSANNE (AFP) - Banning fans from the Tokyo Olympics is "clearly something we don't want", International Olympic Committee chief Thomas Bach said, adding that "multiple scenarios" were under consideration for the rescheduled Games.

Bach said safety was the top concern for organisers of the Tokyo Olympics, which were due to start next week but have been postponed for a year over the Covid-19 pandemic.

But he clearly signalled his reluctance to hold the Games at empty stadiums, now a common sight in sport as other competitions make a tentative return from virus-enforced shutdowns.

"Olympic Games behind closed doors is clearly something we do not want," the IOC president told reporters in a video call.

"So we are working for a solution of the Olympic Games which, on one hand, is safeguarding the health of all the participants and, on the other hand, is also reflecting the Olympic spirit."

Bach and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have both warned that it would be hard to postpone the Games beyond 2021, raising the nightmare scenario of the first Olympics to be cancelled in peace time.

"The first priority is about the safety of all participants of the Olympic Games," said Bach.

"For this reason, we are working now on multiple scenarios of the organisation of the Games with regard to the health situation of which we do not know how it will be in one year from now."

Tokyo governor Yuriko Koike last month told AFP she would make a "120 per cent effort" for the Games to go ahead, pledging the Olympics would be safe despite the pandemic.

On Wednesday Tokyo moved its coronavirus alert to red, the highest level, after a resurgence of cases in Japan's capital.

See the article here:

Olympics: IOC boss Thomas Bach reluctant to hold Tokyo Games behind closed doors - The Straits Times