TikTok Sues US Government Over Trump Ban (cnbc.com) 142
TikTok, the video-sharing application owned by Chinese parent company ByteDance, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government Monday, challenging the Trump administration's efforts to ban the company's American operations. From a report: TikTok explained its rationale for the lawsuit in a blog post on Monday, arguing the ban prevents the company from due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. TikTok argued Trump's executive order, made earlier this month under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ignored the company's efforts to prove it doesn't share data with the Chinese government and isn't a national security threat. "We do not take suing the government lightly, however we feel we have no choice but to take action to protect our rights, and the rights of our community and employees," TikTok said in the blog post. "With the Executive Order threatening to bring a ban on our US operations -- eliminating the creation of 10,000 American jobs and irreparably harming the millions of Americans who turn to this app for entertainment, connection and legitimate livelihoods that are vital especially during the pandemic -- we simply have no choice."
I still havn't got much evidence of wrong doing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than some abstract comments that Tik-Tok is a Chinese company, thus the Chinese Government can access the data, if they want to.
But seriously the Freedom Loving American company, isn't that much safe from American Government collecting its data. It just take some different paperwork to get it pass.
I looked at Tik-Tok and deleted it from my device. Not because of Trump, but because it was just a stupid site. Think Twitter and YouTube combined. However I am more worried about the US Government knowing my viewing habits vs the Chinese Government. As the Chinese government isn't going to do too much towards me if they do. While the US Government may use it against me. Look a video feed of a 17 year old girl in a bikini played on your phone, you must be a pedophile.
I personally think Trump just want to get rid of Tik-Tok. Because there are a lot of people talking smack about Trump on it.
Re:I still havn't got much evidence of wrong doing (Score:5, Funny)
Other than some abstract comments that Tik-Tok is a Chinese company, thus the Chinese Government can access the data, if they want to.
But seriously the Freedom Loving American company, isn't that much safe from American Government collecting its data. It just take some different paperwork to get it pass.
TikTok is clearly in cahoots with the Chinese government. Take TikTok and PRC: 9 letters. 9 is an auspicious number in China and is also associated with the dragon. Take the numerical values of Tik, Tok, and PRC. All total out to even numbers, 40, 46, and 40 respectively. The Chinese Communist Party was formed in 1921: add 19 and 21 and you get 40. TikTok was founded in 2012. 2012/1921 is 91. Add up the values of Tik, Tok, and PRC, and you get 126. Subtract the value of the letters in China (35) from 126 and you get: 91. The signs are clearly there for anyone willing to open their eyes and actually look.
In related news . . . (Score:2)
Baghdad Bob held another press conference this morning to remind the world that that the rumors of American troops in Iraq were simply not true, and that Saddam's forces would devastate any that tried to land . . .
Halfway through, one of the two dogs comprising the audience wandered out, while the other continued gnawing on an old shoe.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/24/mark-zuckerberg-told-white-house-tiktok-poses-a-threat-report.html/ [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I still havn't got much evidence of wrong doing.
International relations are normally much more than mere arm-twisting. You are confusing rights of people vs. coporations mysteriously massively successful in dictatorships.
It's the Chicago way! [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen elections for over 40 years now, I've never seen so many people in a president's own party come out against him, ever.
True, but there's one problem. They're almost all former administration officials, former members of opposing Republican campaigns, or retired/retiring legislators (or dead like McCain). It gives Trump a pathway to criticize them and attack their credibility (which is his go to method). It would be more powerful if active members of Congress, people well entrenched and respected in the party, would speak out against him, and do so publicly. There are of course the whispers that unnamed people are secre
Re: (Score:3)
OK, well, the guy Republicans nominated for President 8 years ago voted to impeach Trump. And it bounced off. How much more entrenched and respected could somebody be?
Once somebody buys into the circular logic that anyone with negative facts about or opinions about their idol is "biased" and therefore doesn't count, there is no reaching them, peri
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, both the trolling, and Trump's subsequent response were beyond childish. Children are cute, and these people are not. On either side. A pox on them both.
HOWEVER, neither side's actions justify ignoring the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder.
You can't just pass a law saying "Kenyan/Indonesian man bad, take all his money and throw him in jail." Or "Orange man bad, take all *his* money and throw him in jail."
You have to find a Constitutionally valid law they have broken. A pre-existing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was referring mainly to TikTok, although pretty much the same logic would also apply here. "Orange Man Bad" is not reason sufficient to prosecute. What might be? "Orange Man is more likely than not guilty of specific crimes, for which there is enough fact and law to indict."
I say this as no great fan of either party; indeed, I consider the other one almost infinitely worse. Yet, as I've posted on a few other threads, I consider the rule of law to be absolutely non-negotiable, and something that, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but most of those people are neocon war criminals establishing a power base for themselves within the McResistance democratic party. Democrats should more unhappy about that than Richard Spencer's endorsement of Biden, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it looks like a neocon, talks like a necon demanding war on Iraq, and walks like a neocon....it's probably a neocon. Even if it didn't have formal PNAC membership. See also, Biden and Hillary, two fervent supporters of the illegal war on Iraq, who worked overtime to maintain American hegemony despite not being able to blame Bush after 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen elections for over 40 years now, I've never seen so many people in a president's own party come out against him, ever. Something is very wrong with him. Very.
You should read up on Lyndon Johnson. He was so unpopular with the Democrat party that he withdrew from running for reelection.
Ironically enough, at a time when the population of the US was heavily polarized with the combination of the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam War/anti-war protests. And interesting parallel.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but compared to Trump, Johnson was well mannered. He was occasionally willing to admit and apologize for a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I still assert that compared to Trump, Johnson was well mannered. But, yes, it's a pretty low bar.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd consider that more criminal than unmannerly. It was a bit late to prosecute him for it, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Fifth Amendment? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a right for American citizens, not foreign corporations.
So...TikTok's employees in the US are all non-citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
So...TikTok's employees in the US are all non-citizens?
Even if they are, it's a moot point. The right to due process isn't limited to citizens. [pbs.org]
Data Isn't the Biggest Threat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook, YouTube, google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That could be the basis of a reasonable argument. But it isn't one that's being made.
Re: (Score:1)
Can go fuck itself. It's a national security threat. That's like saying it will sue the US Gov for not allow itself to spy on US citizens.
If TikTok is a national security threat, then so was AT&T [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If TikTok is a national security threat, then so was AT&T [wikipedia.org]
I was really hoping you were making a fair point because disbanding AT&T would be great, but alas, you're comparing the US spying on people to a foreign government spying on Americans. Those two entirely distinct things in realms with no bearing upon one another. Trump has broad authority to control trade with ANY foreign power on grounds of national security, that doesn't extend to US corporations save for their relations to the US government or if they threaten national security on behalf of a forei
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is unintentionally funny to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Heads I win, tails you lose! (Score:2)
You're just feeding an FP-seeking troll, but can't you at least give it a meaningful subject?
My suggested Subject is a swat at what I regard as the root of the problem. And it works both ways. In theory, free trade could reduce how well it works, but as soon as someone decides his domestic ox is being gored, to heck with free trade. (The "domestic" starts with "American" or "Chinese", but really applies everywhere, but always in favor of the stronger players. Hence "Heads I win, tails you lose!")
Re:TikTok (Score:5, Insightful)
If it can be shown that it is, sure. But that is what they are suing about, lack of due process.
The issue is not that they are, or are not, a security threat, but the fact that some guy just slapped a ban on them with no evidence, or a chance to demonstrate they are NOT a security threat.
Kind of like what Dictators do? Decide they don't like something, ban it and pretend there is no legal process, just do what they say.
I suppose it is a fair call though, Americans probably only want to be spied upon by their OWN government, not someone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not that they are, or are not, a security threat, but the fact that some guy just slapped a ban on them with no evidence, or a chance to demonstrate they are NOT a security threat.
The president has broad authority to do this when there is any indication of foreign trade involved. They're bank statements are evidence above and beyond what is required for the president to enforce any foreign trade policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it possible that the statute that grants the president that "broad authority" might be ruled unconstitutional upon legal challenge if it denies Americans their right to due process under the law (which seems to be what TikTok is arguing)?
Personally I doubt that TikTok will win this lawsuit. But I do think there are legitimate legal questions that are at least worth having the courts adjudicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Tik Tok is owned by ByteDance.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness I think that due process is supposed to apply to everyone not just American citizens. But it sounds like TikTok's argument is that the people impacted by the banning of TikTok extend beyond the immediate owners of TikTok (eg the Americans they employ and the "millions of Americans who turn to this app for entertainment, connection and legitimate livelihoods"). Whether or not a court will actually buy that argument remains to be seen, and even if they did there might be questions of standing to
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Tik-Tok is probably (I don't have probable cause info, either) child's play compared to what Big Tech scoops up on us.
As for stealing business and government intel, the US doesn't bother protecting that shit anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"Big Tech" is too broad a brush. You can be specific and still be valid. In fact be more valid.
"Facebook" is the proper thing to compare to "Tiktok". Possibly "Instagram". Even "Amazon" isn't as accurate a comparison. Or "Google" A.K.A. "Alphabet" if you want a broad brush that is also accurate.
And ISPs are a totally different group, and the data they acquire is different...and much of it is necessary for the internet to work. Then there's Boeing, which is definitely "Big Tech", but which doesn't acqu
Re: TikTok (Score:3, Informative)
Enter TikTok, which spent this summer executing a page from the US' Arab Spring playbook to promote protests and riots with the intent to disrupt and destabilize. Now watch the knee jerk reaction as cities defund their law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I don't think giving the police slightly less of an inflated budget will cause anarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly (Score:2)
Nobody respects the police except for the hard line republicans. Never though I'd see the day when leftists are advocating for the government to take LESS money.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe get glasses than aren't made of derp then? Just as in business, it depends entirely on what the money is spent on. You wouldn't say a company running a targeted advertising campaign is the same thing as a company buying a timeshare on Jeffrey Epstien's island, would you? Then why pretend wanting more money for jobs and health care is the same thing as wanting a draconian police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiiiight. Because no protestor has used Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc etc. You sound like the Democrats in 2016, when they ran around pretending blacks didn't know they lived in a racist police state until Putin hired some Twitter trolls to tell them so.
They were idiots, too.
Re:TikTok (Score:4, Informative)
Before we start throwing Trump blame around, lets clear up something first.
The Senate voted unanimously to Block TikTok on government devices. [reuters.com]
Unanimously
As in all members of the senate.
In other words, All 53 Republicans, All 47 Democrats and both Independents.
If this was just Trump being Trump, every Democrat would have voted against the ban and would run to the closest TV camera they could to tell the American people how Spiteful Trump is because of AOC's brilliant Tulsa TikTok Interference play.
But since that didn't happen, I have to believe that there's something to the accusations. It just isn't in the public eye because they probably used some secret CIA, NSA hack to verify that it's malicious and doesn't want the CCP or you to know how they verified it.
Re:TikTok (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we start throwing Trump blame around, lets clear up something first.
The Senate voted unanimously to Block TikTok on government devices. [reuters.com]
Unanimously
As in all members of the senate.
In other words, All 53 Republicans, All 47 Democrats and both Independents.
And they should do the same for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. If you want to do social media, do it on a personal device, not a government issued one.
Re: (Score:3)
And they should do the same for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. If you want to do social media, do it on a personal device, not a government issued one.
I agree. There's no place for Social Media on a government issued phone. Social media is all scum as far as I'm concerned, But understand that when it comes to politics, it's all about the image you portray.
Voting against the measure would not have changed the outcome (since the Republicans have the majority and would vote with Trump, although I'm not sure if you needed a 2/3 majority to pass this particular measure.) but would give you leverage against the President's claim. By having a unanimous decision
Re: TikTok (Score:2)
Your media director should probably have social media apps installed on their government issued phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Blocking it on government devices is totally reasonable. I'd also recommend blocking Facebook, and several other such things being installed on government devices. I'd also forbid them being installed on private devices that were located on or carried onto government property...at least onto military bases, research labs, etc.
And that's very different from blocking commercial access. Which I would be open to being convinced of, but which I haven't been convinced of. And to single out particular companie
Re: (Score:2)
They probably have the authority to do that on government devices. They're the government. Congress can refuse to disburse funding for such devices, and the executive branch can probably issue valid orders forbidding them to connect to government networks.
That does not, however, automatically confer the right to do the same on ours. That is an entirely separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Horrible bills pass the Senate all the time in unanimous or near-unanimous fashion. See funding for Apartheid Israel and the Patriot Act for a couple examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans probably only want to be spied upon by their OWN government, not someone else's.
Otter: He can't do that do that to our pledges.
Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which means it's not really doing anything that every other social media company is doing.
If that's a concern, then the US should right ban any and all foreign social media companies, not simply TikTok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, I disagree entirely. There absolutely no distinction in terms of how morally gray the blanket collection of data is regardless of who is doing it. No application or system should ever ask for (or store) any data that is not absolutely required for that system to function correctly.
The fact that data is collected and stored not related to the primary function of whatever the system is or does is almost certainly not going to be used for the best interests of that user. But the existence of that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, the con artist did exactly that, comparing the U.S. to Russia [cnn.com]. It almost sounded like the con artist was apologizing for Russia's deliberate targeting of hospitals and civilians in Syria.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it a "national security threat", exactly?
Please make sure that you don't respond by a typing it into a Chinese made device, for your own safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know of any non-Chinese manufactured devices?
Re: (Score:2)
Can go fuck itself. It's a national security threat. That's like saying it will sue the US Gov for not allow itself to spy on US citizens.
Just think: If we had an adult for a president this lawsuit wouldn't be a thing and spying would be the actual reason Tik Tok would be under scrutiny.
This Biff Tannen timeline sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering how many readers will understand that reference without needing to look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, companies are "people", as a cheap hack by Congress to make many laws apply to them as entities (and thus they can get in trouble, and be fined, without any officers at legal risk).
They are not "people" possessing rights. This is leftover rhetoric from the Citizens United decision, where the Supreme Court went out of its way to say the decision wasn't based on "rights" of companies-as-people. Rather, the owners of the company, actual people, have First Amendment rights, and The People (actual people
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate personhood, and the rights and responsibilities that corporations retain, are primarily a product of the courts. Also, then fact that the corporation as a whole can own property, and thus be sued, means that when you don't get your paycheck you don't have to unravel the level of guilt each employee yourself and sue them individually. It also means that when toxic waste starts leakin
Re: (Score:3)
how retarded do you have to be to think "the People of the United States" means non-citizens? this is a serious question, I've never interacted with anyone as retarded as this before
You really need to not criticize people when you aren't knowledgeable about the topic. The Constitution takes care to differentiate between "the people" of the United States and citizens. For instance, not once in the Bill of Rights is the word citizen used, and for good reason. They instead use the phrases "the people" or "person" when they meant to include any person within the jurisdiction of the United States government. (In case you are wondering, the Constitution does use the phrase citizen often. Whe
Re: (Score:2)
how retarded do you have to be to think "the People of the United States" means non-citizens?
On the question of whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners, We have the Internet [lmgtfy.com].
this is a serious question, I've never interacted with anyone as retarded as this before
How arrogant and dumb do you have to be to be completely wrong about a topic and call someone else "retarded"? This is a serious question.
Re:Partially right (Score:5, Insightful)
You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to have the government enforce your opinion through force (even if that force is limited to fines and shutdown orders).
Re: (Score:2)
Complete agree with you there. And if you'll re-read my post, I made no mention of the government :)
Re: (Score:2)
Complete agree with you there. And if you'll re-read my post, I made no mention of the government :)
You didn't explicitly mention "the government" but by making the post in a thread dedicated to the government shutting TikTok down you at least obliquely implied that you were in favor of (or at least not specifically opposed to) the government's actions because you don't think that TikTok contributes any value to society.
If that wasn't your implication then I would ask why your personal opinion on the merits of TikTok is relevant to this discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
No he did not. You injected that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he did in fact imply that. You don't get to separate the dependent clause from the independent clause and claim a different context.
"With the Executive Order threatening to bring a ban on our US operations -- eliminating the creation of 10,000 American jobs and irreparably harming the millions of Americans who turn to this app for entertainment, connection and legitimate livelihoods that are vital especially during the pandemic -- we simply have no choice"
the part betwe
Re: (Score:2)
I agree they're right about job losses - at least to a point. But for the rest:
1/ Millions of people who turn to Tiktok for entertainment would immediately gain 5 points of IQ if Tiktok disappeared
2/ People who need Tiktok to make connections would be better off going out and meeting actual people with real lives
3/ People who make a living out of making Tiktok videos can fuck right off - just like people who make a living out of making Youtube videos. I've never seen a more useless bunch.
"Those people are stupid and somehow I know more about being social than them and I'm mad that they make money! (+4, Insightful)" Nerd-elitism is hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
> 3/ People who make a living out of making Tiktok videos can fuck right off - just like people who make a living out of making Youtube videos. I've never seen a more useless bunch.
While I agree the majority of videos on YouTube are useless I can't help but play Devil's Advocate for a minute:
Q. How is that any different from TV?
Q. Why does the medium matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. You know they are, objectively...
Objectively what? Not to your taste?
I'm mad that they, like a lot of other useless people, made orders of magnitude more than useful members of society, like teachers, nurses or scientists.
Look, I agree that we definitely have under-appreciated people in our society and that every single group you mentioned is at the top of the list. However, when someone produces a video and a bazillion people watch it, and those views cause things to happen like certain brands see an uptick in profit. Why is it so bad that the people generating the video get a slice of it? The way I see it those people getting their videos monetized means the people who make the Ardui
Re: (Score:2)
Well the idea is that they switch to Facebook or such that the American 3 letter agencies can access, not go outside and meet in person.
Re: (Score:2)
1) With the amount of mindless entertainment available in our society, I doubt anyone prone to excessive TikTok usage is turning to significantly more enlightening forms of recreation.
2) People who spend time in forums complaining about the recreation choices of others are likely not in a position to criticize anyone about anything. Although I guess I am online complaining about those who entertain themselves by trolling others, so I'll have to reflect on that.
3) While there is plenty of mindless entertainm
Re: (Score:2)
By the large, I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, deterring young and inexperienced people from conspiring to overthrow the last vestiges of rule of law would be a feature, not a bug. But not a feature worth the horrible precedent that would be set, if it were widely accepted that the federal government may lawfully shut down any organization it wishes to, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, without anything even minimally resembling due process.
Precedents work both ways. They always do.
This should be a lesson to all you young and ine
Yep, and it means you don't belive in democracy (Score:2)
br. Democracy isn't "Everyone gets to participate so long as they agree with me".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The alternatives seem somewhat unattractive to me.
Americans really like their aircraft carriers [globalfirepower.com]. Russia really likes their tanks [globalfirepower.com]. And China really likes their submarines [globalfirepower.com].
If we could all move to a different planet and let them duke it out millions of miles away from us, it would be a spectacular battle to behold.
Re: (Score:2)
really makes you think.
I wish you would have started sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
And shitloads of liberals defend them in the attempt, really makes you think.
It makes me think you suffer from confirmation bias.
Re: It has come to this.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disputed narrative. No sources provided.
Not that you care about U.S. soldiers except to use them as fodder in your keyboard war.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/17... [cnn.com]
Or is the deep state in the intelligence agencies just lying again?
Re: It has come to this.... (Score:2)
An essential element of media literacy is recognizing when a claim is or is not supported by evidence released into the public domain that allows for peer review.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, I would recommend against trusting any "facts" that emanate from only one side, or from one source.
Also, opinions and feelings are not facts.
I wish I could get people to understand this.
Sure they did, so what (Score:2)
They have every right to offer $ or weapons to our enemies. duh! It's just a political football like everything is today in the USA.
Anybody who deals with our enemies in any way that isn't attacking them is supporting them which indirectly can be interpreted as harming us. It's always a selective hypocritical position. The USA gave Afgans weapons (and even Rambo) to fight Russia and now the tables have turned.
What makes it an issue is that it's known well enough that the President was told and did nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Got fooled on Iraq, can't wait to get fooled again and again. The invasion of Afghanistan was just as much bullshit [theguardian.com] as Iraq. You've murdered them with terror drones, tortured them, and fucked children in the ass. [nytimes.com]
Anyone who thinks Afghanis need an incentive to kill Americans has shit for brains.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit will most likely be dismissed.
The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
From your own link (and subsequent links from that)
If a plaintiff can demonstrate that the government's action was done in bad faith, the plaintiff can receive damages despite sovereign immunity. Typically if a party can demonstrate that the government intentionally acted wrongly with the sole purpose of causing damages, that party can recover for injury or economic losses.
And
By way of the Tucker Act, certain claims of monetary damages against the United States are exempt from sovereign immunity.....Suits may arise out of express or implied contracts to which the government was a party. Damages may be liquidated or unliquidated. Suits may be brought for Constitutional claims, particularly taking of property by the government to be compensated under the Fifth Amendment.....The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. The Supreme Court has also held that the Due Process Clause contains a prohibition against vague laws and an implied equal protection requirement similar to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
.
Looks like TikTok has plenty of standing to sue and that sovereign immunity is not applicable in this case.