* It'd be easy for Apple and Google to prevent downloads of TikTok for most users, which would also include app updates, as they have a significant amount of knowledge of users' locations and could prevent most users in Montana -- even those using a VPN -- from downloading the app or updating it.
* It'd be very difficult for Montana to enforce the other piece of the TikTok ban -- if "entity" in the bill means any company, they're stuck: the state has little ability to prevent side-loading of apps on Android and users who want TikTok can access app repositories hosted out of state. There's virtually no way for ISPs inside Montana to surveil all user usage to find out if they're trying to download TikTok from a third-party repository, and even if they could there would be legal issues with the state mandating this.
Fundamentally, this makes user privacy and security much worse.
* Apple, Google, and ByteDance could be aggressive and use the data they have -- all three have GPS data for most or all relevant users here (i.e. TikTok users on an iPhone or Android) -- and block requests to download or use TikTok from within Montana. And they probably will, unless they get a court to block the bill.
The one thing the bill banning TikTok doesn't do is the one thing that is desperately needed: actually protect user privacy, by banning the collection, aggregation, sale, and use of fine-grained user data -- by ByteDance, Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, or any other.
I live in a country where such a ban on certain "enemy" social networks was implemented a few years ago.
What will happen is this.
Teens will download a shit ton of VPN applications, the vast majority of which are specifically produced and marketed by the enemy to circumvent said ban. Then all users' phone traffic gets routed via the enemy VPN instead of just the social app's requests.
Win-win for both sides:
- the government gets populistic approval from the eldery population;
- the adversary gets way more US users' data than they ever dreamed of.
My wife is an 8th grade social studies teacher at a public school in Texas. I spent yesterday in her classroom as the resident technology expert and answered questions about semiconductor manufacturing, neural networks and cryptocurrencies in discussions about trade-offs with technology.
For one, the kids don’t really use TikTok that much and use a handful of apps. Different cliques used different apps more than others. They understood the geopolitical issues with TikTok and very few cared enough about TikTok in particular. They would all just use Reels or some other app more often.
Or vendors that currently sell cases and repair screens will then offer a service to sideload such apps for teens and install who knows what other stuff on phones for a fee from a customer and malware vendors.
The Prohibition did now work back then and only made the Mafia rich and made them push drugs when it was lifted.
Our teens aren't this determined t use a banned platform, don't bet on them suddenly buying VPN services just to use TikTok. It's like saying "oh look Elon bought Twitter and suddenly the select few of our special users will flee to Mastadon as a result and Twitter is dead." Just a bad bet. Convenience is king.
IMO this sounds a bit more like an argument for banning the "vast majority" of VPN apps on the Google/App stores apparently re-routing all traffic to enemies (though I'm skeptical) and less of an argument as to whether or not TikTok should be banned.
You know, all this nonsense could be avoided if we went back to the "if you want to ban our service build yourself a great firewall or get fucked, we don't have to enforce your laws for you" status quo. Unfortunately precedent has been set for foreign persons and corporations to be liable for violating laws of countries they're not centered in just because theyre available to communicate with freely across borders. The big ones like google went along with it for money, now I live in a world where I could potentially be extradited to a foreign country I've never set foot in for saying things on the internet to one of their citizens. So the way I see it I'm happy to watch this whole system of control go ablaze from stupid laws like this one. If authoritarians want to block certain content from their citizens they can do the censoring themselves, but if they want people to have to censor themselves or face penalties they're going to have to deal with stupid shit like this. You can't have it both ways.
>The law specifies that no penalties apply to users of TikTok. But app store operators and TikTok itself could face fines of $10,000 per violation per day, with an individual violation defined as “each time that a user accesses TikTok, is offered the ability to access TikTok, or is offered the ability to download TikTok.”
I hate TikTok and CCP, but banning an app from use is just wrong.
Want to fight TikTok addiction or privacy issues with CCP? Sure, do it. But find other ways: banning users from using it, whereas especially everybody else can access it, is a huge punch on the rights of your own people.
Can somebody explain to me how TikTok in iPhone is worse than Facebook?
The say "TikTok collects a large amount of personal information, which has raised concerns about data mining and potential misuse of user data." - what information they collect and Facebook does not collect?
Installed the app last night. It would be interesting to see their DAU graph for the state!
Something worthwhile noting here is that the usual "politicians don't understand the technology" sentiment doesn't apply here because our governor at least knows how to code Perl, and ran a software company.
One underappreciated aspect of this is ban is that anyone who wants Tiktok will just go download it in Wyoming or Idaho etc, as it seems to be merely a ban on downloading the app, and not a ban on Tiktok traffic itself. So the ban will have near zero actual impact in practice (even if it somehow makes it into effect).
Furthermore, it's unclear if the web app of Tiktok will be affected, or if it's only a ban on the mobile app.
Seems facially unconstitutional. Will maybe force a proper court decision on whether the Bills of Attainder clause applies to corporations.
Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like?
Don't like data about your constituents being in the possession of a company with ownership ties to the Chinese government or communist party? Do the work to describe what kind of 'ties' are the ones that worry you, what kind of entities are the ones you don't like, what kind of data you don't like being in their hands, and write a law that codifies that.
"and demands mobile app stores make the app unavailable for Montana residents."
Oh so now they've made an enemy of Google & Apples legal teams? Because those two aren't going to want to set a precedent for all sorts of bans across random jurisdictions.
"Is there a good reason to ban TikTok?... the answer is still “nobody knows.”
I believe the second sentence answers the first, but not in the way the author intended.
I'm not fundamentally insisting that we legally declare all data compromised until proven otherwise, but there is reasonable risk here that we cannot assuage.
As for whether SB 419 can be upheld: Eh. ~50 states, one of which is being used as a test here. Fine, that's one of the great benefits of the state+fed system. This is probing and forcing people to have the conversation, and that alone feels like this is worth it. Of course I 'sacrifice' Montana residents with this statement, which I arguably have no right to do.
Is there a precedent of app stores needing to enforce app restrictions on a state-by-state basis?
What if Apple protests and just disables their store in MT? It would only impact at _most_ 500k people (population 1mm at 50% market share, not accounting for demographics)
A huge number of angry Montanians who might vote their representatives out, but a rounding error for Apple.
My only consolation in this shitstorm is that it's been expanded to include "all social media applications that collect and provide users' personal information or data to a foreign adversary, or a person or entity located within a country designated as a foreign adversary."
So, yeah. I guess it's time to shut 'em all down.
Now we just wait for the "I didn't mean American companies" retraction.
I'm a bit perplexed that there seems to be minimal discussion on the complete technical absurdity of this ban.
Within the USA, there might _possibly_ be sufficient technical infrastructure available to block app downloads at a national level. Maybe. And leaving aside the myriad circumvention routes.
But at the state level? It's simply not there in the way that the legislators think. Application-level data? Turn off location services. GeoIP? Nice try- mobile carriers don't reliably egress in the state from which the customer traffic originates. E911? Protected by other laws. Cell tower location? What about folks near state borders, and there's no reliable vehicle to get that data to app store operators right now anyway.
What's good enough for an advertiser trying to sell concert tickets is not necessarily good enough for enforcing legal prohibitions.
Effectively, to enforce this would require cooperation between government agencies, mobile carriers, and app vendors on a scale that has not be done in this country before- and with two of the three parties not even remotely interested in such cooperation.
[+] [-] barathr|2 years ago|reply
Here are the takeaways:
* It'd be easy for Apple and Google to prevent downloads of TikTok for most users, which would also include app updates, as they have a significant amount of knowledge of users' locations and could prevent most users in Montana -- even those using a VPN -- from downloading the app or updating it.
* It'd be very difficult for Montana to enforce the other piece of the TikTok ban -- if "entity" in the bill means any company, they're stuck: the state has little ability to prevent side-loading of apps on Android and users who want TikTok can access app repositories hosted out of state. There's virtually no way for ISPs inside Montana to surveil all user usage to find out if they're trying to download TikTok from a third-party repository, and even if they could there would be legal issues with the state mandating this.
Fundamentally, this makes user privacy and security much worse.
* Apple, Google, and ByteDance could be aggressive and use the data they have -- all three have GPS data for most or all relevant users here (i.e. TikTok users on an iPhone or Android) -- and block requests to download or use TikTok from within Montana. And they probably will, unless they get a court to block the bill.
The one thing the bill banning TikTok doesn't do is the one thing that is desperately needed: actually protect user privacy, by banning the collection, aggregation, sale, and use of fine-grained user data -- by ByteDance, Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, or any other.
[+] [-] egorfine|2 years ago|reply
What will happen is this.
Teens will download a shit ton of VPN applications, the vast majority of which are specifically produced and marketed by the enemy to circumvent said ban. Then all users' phone traffic gets routed via the enemy VPN instead of just the social app's requests.
Win-win for both sides:
- the government gets populistic approval from the eldery population; - the adversary gets way more US users' data than they ever dreamed of.
[+] [-] amelius|2 years ago|reply
We would be better served by a total ban on user tracking technologies.
[+] [-] williamcotton|2 years ago|reply
For one, the kids don’t really use TikTok that much and use a handful of apps. Different cliques used different apps more than others. They understood the geopolitical issues with TikTok and very few cared enough about TikTok in particular. They would all just use Reels or some other app more often.
[+] [-] tibbydudeza|2 years ago|reply
The Prohibition did now work back then and only made the Mafia rich and made them push drugs when it was lifted.
[+] [-] Apofis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cableshaft|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nanana909|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archibaldJ|2 years ago|reply
The ban in china is a full Qing-dynasty-style suppression of free speech and the organizing of large-scale protest.
The ban here is due to concerns about data privacy because the users are not tech-savvy enough to consider that.
I don't think the later will force the users to resort to a progressive solution like vpn.
[+] [-] dumpHero2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitlax|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newsclues|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackees|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kranke155|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MadSudaca|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] friend_and_foe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikece|2 years ago|reply
Between Utah and Montana the awareness and use of VPNs is rising among the non-security-conscious, and this is a good thing.
[+] [-] tiedieconderoga|2 years ago|reply
Sounds like a money-printing machine.
[+] [-] can16358p|2 years ago|reply
Want to fight TikTok addiction or privacy issues with CCP? Sure, do it. But find other ways: banning users from using it, whereas especially everybody else can access it, is a huge punch on the rights of your own people.
[+] [-] tlogan|2 years ago|reply
The say "TikTok collects a large amount of personal information, which has raised concerns about data mining and potential misuse of user data." - what information they collect and Facebook does not collect?
[+] [-] thethimble|2 years ago|reply
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-bytedance-shou-zi-chew-8d8...
[+] [-] lost_tourist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomastjeffery|2 years ago|reply
I find it a much more sensible position to criticize both together, along with the rest of proprietary digital socialization platforms.
[+] [-] dboreham|2 years ago|reply
Something worthwhile noting here is that the usual "politicians don't understand the technology" sentiment doesn't apply here because our governor at least knows how to code Perl, and ran a software company.
[+] [-] bioemerl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AbrahamParangi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petesergeant|2 years ago|reply
Interesting! The more Perl people we can get into government[0] the better, for sure
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Tang
[+] [-] avn2109|2 years ago|reply
Furthermore, it's unclear if the web app of Tiktok will be affected, or if it's only a ban on the mobile app.
Source: Am Montanan
[+] [-] jameshart|2 years ago|reply
Seems facially unconstitutional. Will maybe force a proper court decision on whether the Bills of Attainder clause applies to corporations.
Why are legislators so focused on banning TikTok, rather than regulating whatever it is that TikTok does that they don't like?
Don't like data about your constituents being in the possession of a company with ownership ties to the Chinese government or communist party? Do the work to describe what kind of 'ties' are the ones that worry you, what kind of entities are the ones you don't like, what kind of data you don't like being in their hands, and write a law that codifies that.
[+] [-] Andaith|2 years ago|reply
Oh so now they've made an enemy of Google & Apples legal teams? Because those two aren't going to want to set a precedent for all sorts of bans across random jurisdictions.
[+] [-] chris-orgmenta|2 years ago|reply
I believe the second sentence answers the first, but not in the way the author intended. I'm not fundamentally insisting that we legally declare all data compromised until proven otherwise, but there is reasonable risk here that we cannot assuage.
As for whether SB 419 can be upheld: Eh. ~50 states, one of which is being used as a test here. Fine, that's one of the great benefits of the state+fed system. This is probing and forcing people to have the conversation, and that alone feels like this is worth it. Of course I 'sacrifice' Montana residents with this statement, which I arguably have no right to do.
[+] [-] cute_boi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vnchr|2 years ago|reply
The Wall Street Journal recently published this article that I think shines a light on some major areas of concern.
“TikTok Feeds Teens a Diet of Darkness: Self-harm, sad-posting and disordered-eating videos abound on the popular app” [0]
— [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-feeds-teens-a-diet-of-da...
[+] [-] nicenewtemp84|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unfunco|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] renewedrebecca|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tangurena2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwillu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
(Manually removed in the meantime)
[+] [-] Razengan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wnevets|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] edsimpson|2 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/17/23727750/montana-bans-tel...
[+] [-] DanAtC|2 years ago|reply
What if Apple protests and just disables their store in MT? It would only impact at _most_ 500k people (population 1mm at 50% market share, not accounting for demographics)
A huge number of angry Montanians who might vote their representatives out, but a rounding error for Apple.
[+] [-] falcolas|2 years ago|reply
So, yeah. I guess it's time to shut 'em all down.
Now we just wait for the "I didn't mean American companies" retraction.
[+] [-] ninefathom|2 years ago|reply
Within the USA, there might _possibly_ be sufficient technical infrastructure available to block app downloads at a national level. Maybe. And leaving aside the myriad circumvention routes.
But at the state level? It's simply not there in the way that the legislators think. Application-level data? Turn off location services. GeoIP? Nice try- mobile carriers don't reliably egress in the state from which the customer traffic originates. E911? Protected by other laws. Cell tower location? What about folks near state borders, and there's no reliable vehicle to get that data to app store operators right now anyway.
What's good enough for an advertiser trying to sell concert tickets is not necessarily good enough for enforcing legal prohibitions.
Effectively, to enforce this would require cooperation between government agencies, mobile carriers, and app vendors on a scale that has not be done in this country before- and with two of the three parties not even remotely interested in such cooperation.
This thing is pure political theatre.
[+] [-] PraetorianGourd|2 years ago|reply