Senator Plans To Introduce Bill To Ban TikTok Nationwide (reuters.com) 160
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican and China hawk, said on Tuesday that he would introduce a bill to ban the short video app TikTok in the United States. TikTok, whose parent is the Chinese company ByteDance, already faces a ban that would stop federal employees from using or downloading TikTok on government-owned devices. "TikTok is China's backdoor into Americans' lives. It threatens our children's privacy as well as their mental health," he said on Twitter. "Now I will introduce legislation to ban it nationwide." Hawley did not say when the bill would be introduced. "Senator Hawley's call for a total ban of TikTok takes a piecemeal approach to national security and a piecemeal approach to broad industry issues like data security, privacy and online harms," said TikTok spokeswoman Brooke Oberwetter. "We hope that he will focus his energies on efforts to address those issues holistically, rather than pretending that banning a single service would solve any of the problems he's concerned about or make Americans any safer."
Bread and Circuses (Score:2, Insightful)
Next up in the cultural war queue...
So why is Tik-Tok different in effecting children's privacy and mental health than any other social media( other than it is controlled by China)?
Re:Bread and Circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Every parent I know is banning and educating their child away from it. Once they achieve success grades and behaviour always improve
Re: (Score:3)
Controlled by China is a BFD. The rest of it is pretty dire too, of course, but this app is more-than-likely being used for espionage. Think political interference in these kids' futures. Think information for grooming intelligence assets.
You are promoting false equivalency because Hawley can't come up with anything better than a "think of the children" campaign for this. True. That's a tired old excuse.
But I believe it is Hawley's lack of creativity and intelligence you are reacting to. It's definitely not
Re:Bread and Circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
How did the "culture war" evolve into supporting known Chinese espionage?
How is this a left / right issue, at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not known. Maybe a lot of people suspect it, but if there's clear proof then the intelligence agencies haven't released it yet.
It's one thing to be anti-trade with China, but the reasons given by Hawley were "think of the children" and not "they're spying on us", and he did not propose a ban on all Chinese goods in any way but singled out only one.
Re: Bread and Circuses (Score:2)
Actually, it is HIGHLY KNOWN
www.buzzfeednews.com/emilybakerwhite/tiktok-tapes-us-user-data-china-bytedance-access
The FBI, FCC, NSA, CISA, TSA, and the armed forces are all pushing to ban this app. It's already banned in the executive branch itself (you can't use it on Air Force One or in any sensitive area of the white house).
Try as you might to turn it into a partisan issue, you can't.
Re: Bread and Circuses (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about, how does what you said have anything to do with this thread?
Re: (Score:2)
I still think the right solution is not to ban the app, but rather to confiscate ByteDance's stake (on the grounds that ByteDance is essentially a front for the government of an authoritartian single-party state), force TikTok to issue an IPO and obtain a Western/international board of directors and answer to stockholders, and forbid the company to have any communciations of any kind w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's different is that everything the kids put up goes to the Chinese Communist Party. So some airhead teen starts blabbing about his military Dad being deployed to Zambia, or their Mom's work in defense weapons research, and instantly the CCP can add the Dad as part of the unit they already know is there, and maybe open a file on some weapons tech they hadn't heard of before. With enough blabbing, they figure out the strength of the military unit and the fact that there a a research project for drone
Re: (Score:2)
It's not, it's just a voting issue. However it's also likely unconstitutional to have such a ban. But that rarely stops legislators if they think they can spin some political straw into gold.
To be fair... (Score:1)
tiktawk is total trash. Maybe the kidz can then hop over to Vine.
I Didn't Do It, Honest! (Score:2)
It's the standard defense strategy:
1. First, claim "we didn't do it". When that fails...
2. Claim "ok we did it, but everyone is doing it, so why are you picking on us?" (That's today's situtation). When that eventually fails...
3. Claim "ok we did it, and yes we're worse than everyone else, but we had to do it", and make up some b.s. reasons why you absolutely had no choice. I'm guessing the phrase "staying competitive" will be in there when TikTok moves into this final stage of excuse exhaustion.
Can'
Re: (Score:2)
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
Ban Tik Tok (Score:1)
Like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China itself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can strike "envy" of the list... is there any cardinal sin left that party doesn't consider a qualification requirement?
I was wondering for a long time why our Christians in Europe love god and the ones in the US fear him. No more. I'd fear that guy too if I believed he was real and acted that way.
Translation (Score:1)
Senator Hawley's call for a total ban of TikTok takes a piecemeal approach to national security... We hope that he will focus his energies on efforts to address those issues holistically, rather than pretending that banning a single service would solve any of the problems he's concerned about or make Americans any safer.
"Senator Hawley differentiates between invasion of privacy and online harms committed by American corporations, and those perpetrated by Chinese companies in cooperation with the Chinese government. Ultimately, I'm effectively being paid by the Chinese government, so I'm waving my hands and dusting off my very best vocabulary in the vain hope that I can distract you from the very important distinction pointed out by the senator".
Security? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How so? People can consume exactly the same type of content on YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels and many other places.
Oh, the irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a better technical solution? (Score:2)
Banning Tiktok altogether seems idiotic. Banning the exfiltration of the personal data of American citizens who use Tiktok to servers in China seems achievable without killing the app altogether. Unless Tiktok uses proxies in neutral countries to achieve this goal.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that TikTok is owned by China and thus is subject to *its own* espionage act, which overrules any rules the US puts on it.
IE, the US can ban exfiltrating the data, but the owners live in China, and when China says jump, they will exfiltrate it anyway.
It has already been well documented that TikTok is exfiltrating data en-masse to China. It isn't even a matter of debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Then force them to make the choice. If we know the app is sending data and breaking laws, start filing criminal charges against executives and start working with major backbone providers to ban ips behind the Great Firewall known to be used for this activity. Just banning the app could be a PR disaster. Congress needs to put controls in place to allow this kind of exfiltration potentially illegal.
We both know what Tiktok is doing. The point is to take their executives to the mat in public so that their
Re: (Score:2)
That almost happened under the previous administration. Oracle backed out and the rest is history.
Hawley the child-baiting moron (Score:2)
Josh Hawley is a disaster in every way. Well maybe not "every" way but close enough.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
https://slate.com/news-and-pol... [slate.com]
https://rollcall.com/2018/04/2... [rollcall.com]
The only legislation he should be "introdcing" is the one showing the way out.
FUCK OFF Josh Hawley and other pieces of shit who abuse children but want to censor the entire Internet.
We don't need you, we don't want you, and our planet would be better if you offed yourself. We don't need
your censorship to control our virulent
I think most apps should be banned (Score:2)
Just saying.
Pornography is legally defined as:
Pornography–"porn" or "porno" for short–is material that depicts nudity or sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. However, the presence of nudity or sexual acts in piece of media does not necessarily make that media pornographic if the purpose of that media form is something other than sexual stimulation. Pornography can take the form of photographs, videos, written material, audio recordings, or animation, among other media formats.
I see
Ever time I see proposals like this... (Score:1)
Tells me that I need to use TikTok because its clear that none of the 3 letters agencias have backdoor access to it (unlike everything from Meta).
You are free!.....To do as we tell you.
Josh Hawley, interesting guy (Score:2)
No Constitutional authority (Score:5, Interesting)
At first glance:
This is not authorized by the Constitution, and is therefore prohibited by it (9th and 10th amendments).
It is also perilously close to being an unconstitutional bill of attainder (We can punish you, because you are guilty, because we said so.) Generally considered a 4th Amendment violation.
It is also perilously close to being a First Amendment violation (since any app is simply a long string of ones and zeroes).
It also is perilously close to, if not actually, violating the right of all persons to liberty and/or property, amongst other things, without due process of law (5th and 14th Amendments).
I say all this as one who hates TikTok, does not use it, and completely agrees with much of what has been said about its potential for undermining security and democracy (and infinitely more importantly FREEDOM).
The governments of free societies, by definition, can't just ban anything they don't like.
They can and should instead make sure there are no ongoing violations of life, liberty or property that are not being adequately addressed by current law.
For instance, a law at the STATE level, saying that for security and privacy reasons TikTok may not phone home to servers outside the U.S., might pass constitutional muster. And it might actually be useful.
(Disclaimer: not a lawyer; not your lawyer; don't play one on TV; etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is also perilously close to being a First Amendment violation (since any app is simply a long string of ones and zeroes).
I don't know the rest of the US constitution well enough to comment but this seems a highly dubious line of argument.
If they could ban the DeCSS algorithm [wikipedia.org] they can ban the TikTok app.
The governments of free societies, by definition, can't just ban anything they don't like.
I don't know if a ban is justified, but this is about TikTok actively being used by a semi-hostile foreign government to spy on the US.
For instance, a law at the STATE level, saying that for security and privacy reasons TikTok may not phone home to servers outside the U.S., might pass constitutional muster. And it might actually be useful.
Why State? My understanding is that if something is unconstitutional for the US Federal government it's also unconstitutional for the States.
Re: (Score:2)
"They" are different people. The executive can make some decisions without passing laws - put a trade embargo, on a nation for example.
Also, DeCSS was not banned by law, there was no law that said "DeCSS itself shall be illegal." Instead DeCSS violated parts of an already existing law. And the "ban" was from several civil lawsuits, none of which were initiated by the US government
Now that existing law might not itself be strictly valid constitutionally, but that's a separate argument.
In other words, your
Re: (Score:2)
> The governments of free societies, by definition,
> can't just ban anything they don't like.
Sure they can. Or at least the US government can. All they have to do is concoct an argument, no matter how specious (Though in the case of TikTok, I think it won't be.) that something has some effect on "interstate commerce" and they can not only ban stuff, but do pretty much anything they damn well like. It's very flagrant loophole abuse. But it's passed constitutional muster with a much less corrupt SCO
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I came here to say almost the exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And like most such bills, they authors don't care about constitutional or governance issues. These these bills get them noticed by their voter and funding base, and that's what they care about.
These are also ways that you can appear to look like you're doing a lot of work in congress without actually doing anything.
A Riot Is An Ugly Thing.... (Score:2)
Every time I read crap like this, this is the first thing that comes to mind: https://youtu.be/9yL89sTITZQ [youtu.be]
Free speech. (Score:2)
Why the hate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, I don't get what all the fuss is about this app. Any time I've used it there's just a bunch of cosplayers, video game / board game stuff, LGTBQ+ stuff, people pumping up others and supporting their mental health, and attractive college women dancing. Yet everyone's acting like it's the end of the world and China's coming to steal all our stuff and spy on our kids?
Looking at the profile and settings page in the app I don't see any information that other apps haven't asked for - oh noes, China ha
Next up lets change their background from evil ro (Score:2)
Next up, we should probably have Congress passing some kind of law to change the background on teenagers phones.
The other day I seen a teenager exercise, complete autonomy and free expression by having a background on their phone of a harmless rock band.
Dont you know we cannot have our children listening to the devils music. I think Marilyn Manson is on there.
Please stop with click-bait titles. (Score:2)
Banning something nationwide is not the same as banning it for federal employees.
If you care about what they're doing then ban what you don't like, not a particular player. Make federal employees unable to use ANYTHING that tracks everything you do. No Facebook, no LinkedIn, etc. Then see how fast big tech changes things.
Block it at the network, and then punish people who work around the network blocks.
Absolutely Ridiculous (Score:2)
I've never used TikTok, but the more these clowns want to ban it, the more I want to use it. After all, it may mean that they don't have a way of unconstitutionally tapping into it like they've done with so many other services on the internet.
How is this not government censorship? (Score:2)
What is TikTok doing, exactly, that is against the laws of the United States? It seems to be doing information mining -- which is legal, though perhaps reprehensible, and it seems it is funneling this NON-classified information to an external government entity. Yes it can sound alarming -- but how is it different from other apps collecting info? Is it the case it is the only app funneling its information to China? Is doing so illegal?
What is illegal about this app that justifies US legal scrutiny? If t
How long before the tiktokers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long before the tiktokers get together and bring a massive balacklash agaisnt him?
Never? He's up for re-election in 2024 but Tiktokers will have forgotten his name by tomorrow afternoon, so he has nothing to worry about.
Translation (Score:2)
Translation: I'm pushing a bill that doesn't improve your control over anything, into law and now, you're saved. Remember that in 2 years.
I don't trust any of them (Score:2)
I don't like the idea of the kids using tiktok. But I dislike facebook, etc. just as much. If it is bad enough, might have to ban.
The ultimate argument (Score:2)
The senator must be desperate. He used the ultimate argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Right move (Score:2)
Re:afterwards (Score:5, Funny)
If there's one thing that will motivate the young to vote, it might just be this. And loss of abortion/LGBTQ rights. But especially TikTok.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad as it is, yes, I think so too.
Re:afterwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Itâ(TM)s also hilarious that all the reasons the US government cite for not allowing TikTok to operate are all the exact things the US uses social media for.
I don't know that hilarious is exactly the right word. Regardless, don't fall into a trap of false equivalence. There are similarities and differences between what is collected and how it is used. I very commonly speak out against unconstitutional citizen spying programs (and regularly get downmodded for it, no less!) but let's not pretend that there aren't valid reasons to be concerned about foreign adversaries building dossiers on American citizens.
They just donâ(TM)t want other countries to do the same things they are getting away with.
Well no, why should they? Why should you?
Re: (Score:1)
It's a shell, game, people. And I, for one, welcome our new Chinese Overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but let's not pretend that there aren't valid reasons to be concerned about foreign adversaries building dossiers on American citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_profile [wikipedia.org]
https://transparency.fb.com/data/government-data-requests/country/US/ [fb.com]
I have no words for your comment and am surprised and somewhat ashamed you have been modded Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:afterwards (Score:5, Insightful)
China also bans all US social media within their country. So it's not a reach for the US to do likewise.
China also throws dissidents in re-education camps. Should we do that too?
If China can deprive its citizens of basic rights, it's not a reach for the US to do likewise.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
From a Canadian point of view, your government already does this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: afterwards (Score:2)
China also throws dissidents in re-education camps. Should we do that too?
If China can deprive its citizens of basic rights, it's not a reach for the US to do likewise.
Oh, but you already do *cough* Assange *cough* Manning *cough* Snowdon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What healthcare are they being denied?
The abortion issue is more complicated then you act. As someone that is pro-life, I can at least see that the issue is complicated (if it's a baby, then we need to protect its life; if it's not a baby, then we have no right to tell a woman what she can or can't do.)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"Denied access to healthcare" = government-funded healthcare won't pay for elective surgeries/hormone therapies.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are various prohibitions on treatments for transgender people, for example. There's also a lack of educational support for all LGBTQ people in some places, with Florida being one of the worst.
Re:afterwards (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe there are ANY prohibitions or treatments for grown adult transgenders (ie hormone therapies, surgeries...etc), nor do grown adult trans folks have any problem getting any educational support they wish to obtain.
Now, if you're talking about "treating" young children and teens, with powerful hormones and surgeries that can alter and scar them mentally, physically and sexually beyond repair...sure that's not something we want to do to children.
Especially since the overwhelming majority of children that actually have some form of dysphoria actually grow out of it as they approach upper teen/adulthood....if you permanately mutilate or alter their bodies with irreversible treatments...you're robbing them of the rest of their lives.
And as for "education".....how about we wait to teach them about kink and sexual preference acts till they are actually old enough by law to have sex, eh?
It's one thing to teach children reproduction....something that is biology. But teaching one how to fellate a dildo is far from being academic in nature and falls on the side of kink and adult sexual leanings. Again, they can learn all they want to about that as adults.
Teaching children biology is academic and long established.....teaching kids kink is something very new and not sure why some extreme leftists are wanting to push this...something that is way out of bounds and unnecessary.
How about we teach children adult subjects as they approach adulthood....?
Re: (Score:2)
Also worth mentioning that sexualising being LGBTQ is a classic homophobic trope. Just loving someone of the same sex is not a "kink". Being a different gender to the one assigned at birth isn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
This is new stuff....experimental "medical" stuff. And if you look at other countries that tried to dive into this before the US, like the UK...they are closing down these. clinics and shutting down the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You only have to look the videos of how introduce non-binary topics to your pre-school classroom to see that its not a trope - its reality. LGBTQ are for the most part products of grooming, and that is a cycle of abuse. Most gays are groomers - all there is to it, not entirely their fault but they need help not space and access to other peoples kids.
Simple statistical analysis will show you pretty much the same is true for all this transgender nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I hadn't heard that kind of hateful bullshit outside 4chan et al, at least since the 90s.
All this "groomer" shit is getting people killed.
Re: afterwards (Score:2)
LGBTQ are for the most part products of grooming, and that is a cycle of abuse. Most gays are groomers - all there is to it, not entirely their fault but they need help not space and access to other peoples kids.
Simple statistical analysis will show you pretty much the same is true for all this transgender nonsense.
Kindly please show me that analysis that supports your claims.
Because otherwise you're talking out of your proverbial.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Where? When?
I sure don't hear about all this supposed violence against gays and trans actually happening.
If there were violence like this on any type of scale we'd have it plastered all over the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Teaching "sex" education is part of teaching biology, reproduction.
That pretty much requires normal heterosexual sex in the discussion.
Sexual preferences, really has no place in the school....so, no gay sex talks needed.
This was never a topic taught when I grew up and isn't required now.
Why are we goin
Re: (Score:2)
LGBTQ are for the most part products of grooming
There is little evidence that you can "talk" someone into becoming LGBTQ any more than you can "talk" someone out of being LGBTQ. Look at the failure of conversion therapy, for example (see, for example: https://www.tandfonline.com/do... [tandfonline.com])
Actually, failure is too strong a word. Conversion therapy is effective at increasing depression and suicide rates (see citation above)
Most importantly, and this is what puzzles me most - WHY would you want to try to talk someone into being a different gender or sexuality?
Re: (Score:2)
Show me the "gay" gene, and I'll believe you.
If there was a glut of undebatable scientific proof of biologically gay people....you'd see it being brought up all the time.
Sorry I don't buy it.
It's a free country, you're free as an adult to participate in it.....but it isn't natural, I just don't buy that, and I've had no serious scientific proof showing it that I've come across.
And no, I don't believe school
Re: afterwards (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were really pro-life you'd oppose guns, police violence, and the death penalty. If you really wanted to reduce abortions you'd fight for affordable housing, affordable healthcare that isn't tied to employment, a liveable minimum wage, paid parental leave, access to contraceptives, adequate sex education, affordable childcare, funding for services like Planned Parenthood, addressing domestic violence, or any number of issues that drive the demand for most abortions in the first place. I guarantee you won't get any push back on those issues from the pro-choice side, so why not address the 80% where both sides have common ground before we debate the other 20%? Yet it seems the "pro-life"/anti-abortion side keep fighting against the very measures that would reduce them, almost as if it isn't about the "babies" at all but about subjugating women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A parent is required to keep a baby alive after it is out of the mother's body. Why is that different.
If you were really pro-life you'd oppose guns, police violence, and the death penalty. If you really wanted to reduce abortions you'd fight for affordable housing, affordable healthcare that isn't tied to employment, a liveable minimum wage, paid parental leave, access to contraceptives, adequate sex education, affordable childcare, funding for services like Planned Parenthood, addressing domestic violence, or any number of issues that drive the demand for most abortions in the first place.
That a false argument because it's one way. If I agreed to all those things, would you then agree abortion in most circumstances should be outlawed?
Re: (Score:2)
. It doesn't matter if you think a 6-week old clump of cells is a living human baby with personhood and rights, no person has the right to use another's body without their consent, even if they would die without it.
There is only one place in our law I can think of where a person might be deprived of life without process. The you kill them in self defense case. Even then you will be charged with at least manslaughter unless its painfully clear the only reasonable choice you had was lethal force.
Independent of if the infant has the right to 'use' their mothers body - abortion would still never be justified. Your argument is just an excuse for murder, and shabby one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What healthcare are they being denied?
All of it if they can't stump up the cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the issue is once they have another body growing inside them, do they also own that body.
Not really. The question remains whether they own their own body, or can be forced to host a pregnancy in it. I for one think there's only some discussion to be had there about intentional vs. forced insemination.
Re: (Score:2)
It comes back to the point at which we call the unborn a human, as it determines when they have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Do those on death row have a right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or those that are killed in a just war? Or those killed in self defense? They're all surely human. While I can't claim to know all of your own personal beliefs, the vast majority of American society would generally agree that it's perfectly to kill a human in those cases (with the death penalty being perhaps the most controversial).
The death penalty, war, and self defense are of course not the same as abortion. My point,
Re: (Score:2)
It comes back to the point at which we call the unborn a human, as it determines when they have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If the rights you want to give to the unborn conflict with the rights of the born, whose rights rule?
Re: afterwards (Score:2)
The truly hilarious detail of this topic is the Trump Administration was so vindictive of TikTok over a prank they played on one of his rallies that they gave the company a first amendment defense. If TikTok really is a threat to the USA we're dealing with it a good deal later than we could have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's one thing that will motivate the young to vote, it might just be this. And loss of abortion/LGBTQ rights. But especially TikTok.
Luckily the general public won't get to vote on this. Only the plutocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
The young already vote for brainless faux-progressives. This will change nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA says he's a "China hawk". In my opinion that's underestimating. He's an "anything hawk" that pushes forward his dream to be POTUS. Our current and former president both make that easier for Hawley, as they've shown you can be a bumbling total asshat an
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope that they can make it a constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
National security has always trumped rights of the people.There are many alternative apps that do the same which are not sending all of our children's personal data to Chinese servers.
How do you feel about China's government having more information about our children than the US government? Names, friends, contacts, etc... Do you know everything that it is tracking? People put in stupidly personal details into these apps, but this one specifically is accessible by the Chinese government by law.
Do you think
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
National security has always trumped rights of the people.There are many alternative apps that do the same which are not sending all of our children's personal data to Chinese servers.
So what you're saying is that banning Tiktok is performative bullshit which will change nothing substantive?
I supported (and continue to support) disallowing all such apps from government devices, devices of people with security clearance, etc etc.
How do you feel about China's government having more information about our children than the US government?
Oh, my sweet, summer child. Tiktok can only get whatever you put into the app, and maybe whatever leaks out of your clipboard. The US government has access to everything on your phone, all of your phone calls, all of your emails, knows who you're sending mail to a
Re: (Score:2)
Your tinfoil hat is showing.
HTH HAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.aclu.org/news/nati... [aclu.org]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can pretend the US is doing this too if you want
You can't pretend the US isn't since Snowden, Manning, Winner et al.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you feel about China's government having more information about our children than the US government? Names, friends, contacts, etc... Do you know everything that it is tracking? People put in stupidly personal details into these apps, but this one specifically is accessible by the Chinese government by law.
You're absolutely right.
But let's rephrase this to get a different angle on the same question:
If someone has access to your children's personal data, probably including control of an app that has access to your daughters webcam: How much does it matter that he's Chinese?
Even as I trust the US government slightly more than the Chinese, it's not a matter of nationality - no one should be allowed to collect that.
Re: (Score:2)
I always giggle at there being a drag queen in congress now, and being a republican.
Re: (Score:2)
They've got a real pack of obviously sad sacks right now. The coward, the compulsive liar, klan mom, bobo, rapey forehead guy... the list goes ever on and on, right? And that's to say nothing of the usual creepos like turtle guy, uglywife cancun, magic underpants man...
Re: (Score:1)
We allow US military bases on our own country, but we don't allow Chinese military bases here! How racisist.
Allowing US businesses to do something that are not allowed by China is not racist. The US businesses are theoretically regulated by the US. Also, the US government doesn't own a controlling interest of the US tech business
Re: (Score:2)