this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
523 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
60073 readers
4632 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Having read through the bill, here's how it works:
So to circumvent it, basically use a VPN to use the app, and for updates, you'd probably need to side-load on Android or something similar. I don't know how Apple's store works well enough to know what options users have to install and update the app after the ban.
That said, there is no provision for making it illegal to use the app, the onus is entirely on companies facilitating access to the app.
Edit: I was wrong about the ISP. After a reread, it's talking about server hosting. So a server cannot be hosted in the US, nor can a server in the US distribute copies of the app, or host source code for the app.
"Controlled by a foreign adversary" and "foreign adversary country" are the key phrases. The definitions are here.
It refers to United States Code title 10 section 4872(d)(2), which says:
I think those phrases are important when discussing any potential "slippery slope" aspects of this bill. It's about companies/applications from specific adversary nations. It's not about just any service that annoys a US politician. The bar here is much higher, and the scope is narrow. While it does identify ByteDance and TikTok by name, it will also apply to other companies from those nations, if they are determined to present a threat to US national security.
I haven't read the entire bill, so please don't take this as advice, but in principle, I think it seems like a sensible measure. A major communication platform like TikTok makes a very effective propaganda and misinformation tool. Exactly the sort of thing that an adversary nation would use to sway political discourse, influence elections, even undermine a democracy.
Of course, any law can be abused, so paying attention to how this one is applied and enforced will be important, just as with any other.
While true, it also includes any US (or other county) company that is owned at least 20% by someone in one of those adversary countries.
The President can't just name any country an "adversary country," but it's not just companies in those countries either. So something like Epic Games could qualify since TenCent (owned by a Chinese national) owns >20% stake.
However, the law also restricts how a company or product is subject to the rule. Basically, unless they are TikTok or ByteDance (or directly affiliated with either in a legal sense), the President must:
Then the company has 90 days to appeal before the statute of limitations is up, and 270 days to comply (i.e. divest from the adversary country).
So the bill is pretty decent in preventing abuse, so I'm more worried about the precedent it's setting. We generally don't ban things here in the US, so this is a pretty big step IMO.
This is a good oppertunity to teach young people about tech
Does is specify ISP blocking directly in the bill?? It was my understanding that it would just prevent US based app stores (Apple, Google) from distributing the app in their stores.
I'm not even sure how ISP blocking would work, unless it was to just blackhole DNS queries to tiktok.com. Having attempted to block DNS lookups for TikTok on my own home router via PiHole, I can say that the app either hard codes IP addresses, or resolves DNS over HTTPS independently of the system DNS settings, so I doubt a DNS based ISP block would be feasible.
Here's the bill (Division H is the relevant part).
I misread "internet hosting service" in the initial section as "Internet service," so I'm guessing it doesn't obligate ISPs to block TikTok or any other service.
It does block server hosts from allowing distribution of blocked apps though. So no local mirrors of the app.
Right they define internet hosting service as:
So this would prevent a US organization like AWS, Oracle, etc from hosting the TikTok user data as long as TikTok is owned or a subsidiary of ByteDance or another "foreign adversary".
Elsewhere in the text, they exclude "service providers" from restrictions, so it seems like ISPs are not going to block requests to TikTok.
Yup, that's my read too after a review.
I honestly kinda skimmed that part initially because I was more interested in how it could impact other apps. I don't particularly care about TikTok, I just wanted to know what other apps could be targeted and what the process for that looks like.