1. Thanks for being civil. You don’t get this kind of conversation when trump was in office, his trolls were all over.

  1. US intel committee will never permit a comprehensive data privacy law. They would lose the best mass access spying tools they have ever had.

    1. Please! So you Never heard of the IRS? Seriously??? Maybe you are unaware (for some reason) of their main frames!??

    2. To think that intelligence agencies of any country will abide by data privacy laws (which are intended to curb private industry) is a logical fallacy.

  2. Google lies about not sharing information. As soon as the required my phone number, email and phone got backed up with spam and solicitors.

    1. Then report the Spam in your Inbox so they get screened next time. Google does not share information. AI can guess your e-mail address and permutations thereof. That’s where spam comes from.

      I have three inboxes, one of them Gmail. None of them have spam or solicitations anymore. All the mail I get come from subscriptions I know and approved before.

    2. Google does share information, when required by a law enforcement warrant. It does so in Europe, and… in Hong Kong.

    3. @asleepawake3645  yes a court has to be involved. It doesn’t sell the information unless you have authorized it.

  3. This bill, if it is passed, should include specific clauses that assert that it applies ONLY to Tik Tok and is in no way applicable to any other web site both foreign or domestic.
    Cold comfort, I know, if exceptions are insisted upon for “national security”.

    1. @Perry Stroika To you and Gary Y: Thanks for your observations. Clearly I’m no lawyer or law scholar so your replies are taken as instructive.
      I think that the gist of the thing is that there are devils in the details of trying to craft a law with such narrow focus.
      The larger devil is making law that is specifically tailored enough to fix a certain need but can’t be interpreted to apply in a way not intended by
      the original law.
      For that reason, all laws are in need of extremely close scrutiny and debate to ensure that parties not targeted by the law not are unfairly affected. Allegedly, this is built into the process of legislation.
      Some recent, and some older, laws draw attention to the fact that such is not always the case.

    2. @Gary Y Stare Decisis—a Latin term that means “let the decision stand” or “to stand by things decided”—is a foundational concept in the American legal system. To put it simply, Stare Decisis holds that courts and judges should honor “precedent”—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. While I personally hold with the principal to ban tic Tok for National security concerns… I feel that any implementation of the process should be extremely wary of this term. Extremely! Its a must to protect the law for the US itself stand as it is without change. To hold concern is completely justified!

    1. @Sevenfold120 So you’re just in favor of a fascist platform operating in stealth-mode in our democratic country?

  4. Brilliant assessment. Thank you for clarifying the possibilities but also the implications to American values.

    1. American values brought to you BY the Chinese communist party!!
      get it today!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣

    2. @Lee china is building massive number of Nuclear bombs and ICBMs.
      and they are not pointing at russia or N.K0rea.
      how they are financing them? tiktok money, at least part of it.

  5. In my opinion, any new law on social media should mandate that the default position for all users (new and old) is to prevent any data mining or sharing. Furthermore, penalties for violating this rule should be egregious. If, for some reason, a user WANTED to have their personal data shared, then the user would need to actively seek out the correct screen and opt in to such a scheme.

    1. That is an untenable solution. Why do you think these services are free? Targeted ads aren’t bad and advertising is a great way to subsidize all the free services. Government should champion transparency and informed consent, not block targeting.

    2. ​@Samurai To these social media companies, the user (& their data) is their Product. That is why they are free to use.

    3. @Samurai Respectfully, I think you missed my point. I never said anything about the ads, or whether or not the applications/programs should remain free of charge. I only referred to the data sharing and data mining. Although I don’t use these applications, if I did I would much rather pay $10.00 per month than have every one of my digital moves be noticed, shared, and monetized. Finally, you mentioned informed consent. I agree. So why do most/all of these programs have data mining and data sharing as the default position? And if someone is savvy enough to want to opt out, then the process is tortuous and convoluted BY DESIGN. The company actively restricts your attempts at informed consent. How do you propose to fix that?

    4. @Andrew Rohde If you would rather pay $10 a month then you are an outlier because the vast majority of people would not. You ask questions to which the answer is painfully obvious. These are capitalist companies with shareholders they have to satisfy.

  6. The trouble with Congress is that instead of listening to the voters who elect them, after they’re in office, they act according to their own wishes.

  7. Thank you. I knew something was wrong about all this and I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Thank you again.

  8. Thank you for expressing a well reasoned, fact-based, articulate argument against banning the TikTok app in the U.S. I was unaware of the alternatives, in terms of national security and privacy issues, and ignorant of the political impact it would have on the free flow of information. Now I have a better-informed opinion on this issue. Nice work!

    1. @Jim McLoughlin yeah.. but once you walked away from the screen…. you left with everything with you.

  9. _“Those, who by indifference and apathy, choose to disregard what their governments do in their name, are destined to become serfs. Or at worst slaves.”_ —Unknown

  10. This is a really good summary of the pros and cons of this issue. And I have to agree right at the start you point out the obvious. Why does our government allow corporations to dig so deep into our personal data for their profit. Screw that. If we had comprehensive data protection, TikTok wouldn’t be an issue. In fact, none of these companies would be an issue. Thank you for putting this together. Presenting it in a very thoughtful way and articulating this situation very well. Kudos

  11. TikTok itself, along with other social media, is not the problem. The problem is the cause of these addictions. There are so many ways to live a productive life instead of wasting hours watching people get high on themselves, spreading lies or hate, or making fake vids to get “likes.” Read a book, exercise, meet friends, learn something new.

  12. To me part of the issue is the conflation between the US’s lack of meaningful privacy legislation and a specific app, in this case TikTok, that’s a risk due to the current geopolitical issues. There’s lots of examples of effective privacy legislation out there (Europe’s GDPR for example) that could be used as a starting point. The real issue is that the on sale of customer private information is a very lucrative business and US legislators consistently fail with the Ethics vs Money question.

  13. You really should be worried about is how some judges don’t give a damn about work ethics and enjoy high value gifts and what’s more worrying is that the other judges are so silent about it 😭😭😭 can’t blame the Chinese on this though 😢😢

  14. Agreed 100% and thank you so much for naming this for what it is, and for offering a truly constructive approach to secure our privacy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.