Commerce Department Remembers It Was Supposed To Ban TikTok; Says It Won't Enforce For Now

from the oh,-right,-that dept

Yesterday we noted that TikTok had made a filing with the government asking what the fuck was going on with the supposed ban on their application that was supposed to go into effect this week. While a court had issued an injunction saying the Commerce Department couldn't put the ban into effect, the Trump administration basically hadn't said anything since then, and the ban was set to go into effect yesterday.

Late yesterday, the Commerce Department put out a notice basically saying that it's complying with the injunction issued by the court, and therefore not implementing the executive order and the ban:

However, on October 30, 2020, the District Court issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. This Order enjoined the Department from enforcing the Identification and the prohibition on transactions identified in Paragraphs 1-6 above.

The Department is complying with the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this serves as NOTICE that the Secretary’s prohibition of identified transactions pursuant to Executive Order 13942, related to TikTok, HAS BEEN ENJOINED, and WILL NOT GO INTO EFFECT, pending further legal developments

Of course, the Commerce Department saying it won't enforce the order doesn't answer the larger question of whether or not the US government is still demanding that it sell off all of its US assets -- or even whether or not the grifty non-sale to Oracle will suffice.

Basically, highlighting how much of a joke this whole thing was, it seems that the supposed "national security" rationale behind all of this was complete garbage, and since Trump has his hands full trying to pretend he won the election he very clearly lost, everyone's just going to let this slide until the Biden administration comes in and likely drops the executive order altogether. But kudos to Larry Ellison for getting a lucrative hosting deal.

Filed Under: ban, china, commerce department, donald trump, executive order, injunction, wilbur ross
Companies: bytedance, oracle, tiktok

Trumpland Apparently Just Forgot About Its Manufactured TikTok Hysteria

from the whoops-a-daisy dept

We've repeatedly made it pretty clear that President Trump's effort to ban TikTok is little more than a performative, xenophobic, idiotic mess. For one, the effort appears more focused on trying to get Trump-allied Oracle a new hosting deal than any serious concern about consumer privacy and security. Two, banning a teen dancing and lip syncing app does jack shit in terms of thwarting China or protecting U.S. consumer privacy, since the U.S. telecom, app, and adtech markets are largely an unaccountable privacy mess making it trivial to obtain this kind of data elsewhere.

Further highlighting the performative nature of the proposed ban, TikTok this week effectively stated that Trumpland appears to have forgotten about the proposed ban entirely. TikTok filed a petition this week in a US Court of Appeals calling for a review of actions by the Trump administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), pointing out that the deadline for ByteDance to sell off its US assets over national security concerns came and went this week with no action from Trumpland or word on any extension.

Apparently the whole TikTok thing fell off the radar as the administration focuses on pretending it didn't lose the election. Whoops:

"For a year, TikTok has actively engaged with CFIUS in good faith to address its national security concerns, even as we disagree with its assessment,” TikTok says in a statement to The Verge. “In the nearly two months since the President gave his preliminary approval to our proposal to satisfy those concerns, we have offered detailed solutions to finalize that agreement – but have received no substantive feedback on our extensive data privacy and security framework."

This is, of course, because the TikTok ban was largely performative bullshit and cronyism, designed to drum up some hysteria over China and provide Trump with leverage in his harmful trade war while driving some additional cash and influence to his U.S. allies.

If the Trump administration and GOP genuinely cared about U.S. consumer privacy and security, there's a laundry list of more pressing issues it could do something about, including shoring up vulnerable U.S. telecom infrastructure, passing even a baseline U.S. privacy law for the internet era, better policing the widespread abuse of user location data (by corporations and the government alike), attempt to shore up security in the internet of broken things sector, secure election integrity, and stop, you know, trying to destroy encryption.

Neither Trump Inc. nor the Trump-allied GOP does any of this because it's more interested in bad faith posturing and bullshit than serious governance or public welfare. If the folks fanning their face over TikTok truly cared about consumer privacy and security, we'd do something about the broader, unaccountable mess that is adtech, app, government, and telecom data privacy. Instead we get a giant pile of bullshit and a mountain of billable legal man hours over something that was never serious adult policy to begin with.

Filed Under: apps, ban, cfius, china, executive order, social media
Companies: bytedance, tiktok

Court Says Trump's Plan To Block TikTok Can't Go Into Effect Yet

from the blocked dept

As we noted late on Friday, even with the weird grifty deal between TikTok and Oracle, Trump's ban on TikTok was scheduled to go into effect last night -- but a court was rushing to review a request by TikTok/Bytedance to put in place a temporary injunction to stop the rules from taking effect.

In an emergency hearing on Sunday morning the judge appeared to be inclined to block the injunction, noting:

This was a unilateral decision with very little opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard and the result, whether we're talking about November or tonight, is a fairly significant deprivation.

If you don't recall, the block had two stages. The first was supposed to go into effect last night, blocking app stores from any new downloads (including updates) for the software. The second would go into effect on November 12th, and that would block other US services from helping TikTok (no optimization, no CDNs, no peering) as well as any use of TikTok's API.

In a ruling late on Sunday, the judge agreed to a preliminary injunction blocking the rules from going into effect last night, but not issuing one blocking the November rules. However, the reasoning is not known, because it was filed as a sealed memorandum, though both parties have been asked to approve unsealing it perhaps as soon as today.

It seems likely that the reasoning will be at least somewhat similar to the preliminary injunction that blocked the WeChat ban from going into effect: that you can't just magically wave your arms around and scream "national security" to ban entire communications platform from the US -- especially without addressing the 1st Amendment concerns.

The Commerce Department put out a brief statement saying that the Executive Order is "fully consistent with the law" (it isn't) and "promotes legitimate national security interests" (it doesn't). However, it also says it will comply with the injunction, but will "vigorously defend" the E.O. from legal challenges.

On September 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against the implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 13942, limited to the Secretary of Commerce’s Identification of Prohibited Transactions with TikTok/ByteDance involving ‘any provision of services… to distribute or maintain the TikTok mobile application, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store.’ The E.O. is fully consistent with the law and promotes legitimate national security interests. The Government will comply with the injunction and has taken immediate steps to do so, but intends to vigorously defend the E.O. and the Secretary’s implementation efforts from legal challenges.

In other words, this isn't over yet by a long shot.

Filed Under: ban, china, commerce department, executive order, injunction, preliminary injunction, wilbur ross
Companies: bytedance, tiktok

TikTok And The DOJ Still Fighting It Out In Court Despite Oracle 'Deal'

from the look-at-that dept

Even though Trump gave his supposed okay to the grifty TikTok/Oracle hosting deal, it appears that TikTok, ByteDance and the Trump administration are still busy fighting this out in court. The Trump rules to ban the app are still set to go into effect on Sunday. And while WeChat users were able to block the rules from going into effect, they still technically are scheduled to go into effect for TikTok this weekend.

TikTok has asked for an injunction to stop the ban and the court is going to decide at the last minute whether to issue an injunction in the TikTok case as well. This is, in part, because the Oracle deal (which is not a sale and accomplishes none of the stated goals of the original executive order) still needs approval from the Chinese side -- and there are indications that China wants a better deal.

After a hearing on Thursday, the judge ordered the government to either respond to the request for an injunction or to submit "a notice describing [the DOJ's] plan to delay the effective date of the subset of prohibited transactions directed against TikTok that are scheduled to go into effect" on Sunday at midnight. The DOJ, rather than say they were delaying the TikTok ban, instead, filed an opposition to the proposed injunction, though it did so under seal so we can't see what the DOJ said.

The judge is expected to rule by Sunday, and it's possible (likely) that he'll drag the lawyers from both sides into (virtual) court this weekend. The whole thing remains insane. The President should never have the right to just ban a random social media app like this. Hopefully, the court agrees to an injunction while everything else gets worked out.

Filed Under: ban, china, commerce department, donald trump, injunction
Companies: bytedance, oracle, tiktok

Google Finally Gets Around To Banning Ads For Stalkerware

from the i-spy dept

Stalkerware is one of those things that most people never would have considered when technologies were being developed, but which in hindsight come off as practically inevitable. These apps, often times named as if they would be chiefly marketed to parents trying to keep tabs on their kids, but which instead are also specifically advertised as ways to stalk current romantic partners and exes, are all different flavors of creepily allowing a person to snoop on the location and activities of an unsuspecting other person. The whole concept is so obviously evil that it's a wonder why any platform would allow these apps to be sold in the first place, and yet it was only in 2019 that Google managed to ban them from its app store.

Antivirus company Avast said Wednesday that it's found seven stalkerware apps available on Android's market. In all, they had been installed more than 130,000 times. Google removed four of the apps after Avast reported the privacy violations on Tuesday, and removed the last three on Wednesday.

Google said its policy prohibits commercial spyware apps and encourages people to report any apps that violate its standards.

Since then, Google has regularly had to purge new creepy entrants into the stalking marketplace, but it has done its best to keep up. Because, as Google stated in its policy above, such apps are prohibited on the app store.

But not in Google's advertisements, apparently, at least up until this past week.

In an ad policy update this week, Google said that beginning August 11 it will prohibit ads for products or services marketed for secretly tracking or monitoring someone. This includes, but is not limited to:

Spyware and technology used for intimate partner surveillance including but not limited to spyware/malware that can be used to monitor texts, phone calls, or browsing history; GPS trackers specifically marketed to spy or track someone without their consent; promotion of surveillance equipment (cameras, audio recorders, dash cams, nanny cams) marketed with the express purpose of spying.

Credit where it's due: Google's change in policy is good. And, given the massive ecosystem that is Google's advertising system, it's easy to imagine how the company might not have been initially prepared for the review and purges necessary to keep these sorts of ads off its platform.

But the truth is that's a massively weak caveat, given the nature of these ads. Reading Google's description of the types of ads that are newly banned, it practically yanks the follow up question out of your mouth: Wait, why did you ever allow ads for this sort of thing in the first place? As the Gizmodo post notes, Google has been aware of just how big a problem stalkerware has been on its platforms since at least 2018, and almost certainly before. How has this possibly taken this long?

Filed Under: ads, android, ban, stalkerware
Companies: google

Senators Pitch Temporary Facial Recognition Ban, Leave Door Wide Open For Abuse By Federal Agencies

from the take-another-pass-or-three-before-sending-this-out-for-a-vote-pls dept

Here's a promising development on the facial recognition front -- one that won't make facial recognition tech developers very happy. Bans have been popping up around the nation but this legislative pitch would (sort of) prevent the federal government from deploying the tech.

On Wednesday, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced legislation to place a moratorium on the use of facial recognition by the federal government or with federal funds—unless Congress passed regulations for the technology.

The Ethical Use of Facial Recognition Act aims to create a 13 member congressional commission representing interested parties—including law enforcement, communities subjected to surveillance, and privacy experts.

It's a temporary ban but it's better than doing nothing about the federal government's enthusiasm for unproven tech. The DHS has been pushing for this tech to be deployed everywhere travelers might board conveyances or cross borders. Federal law enforcement agencies are just as interested in using this tech despite its horrible track record, amassing large collections of facial pictures and granting access to just about any local agency expressing an interest in rolling the dice on biased software. Then there's Clearview, which is its own monstrosity -- one that implicates far more variables than government access.

Unfortunately, there's a big exception carved out for law enforcement agencies, which would include DHS components assigned to borders and airports. The only thing keeping this bill from being completely useless is that the exception is tied to a warrant requirement, which means no more biometric scanning at international airports.

Or maybe it doesn't. The bill [PDF] doesn't specifically address the Constitutional no-man's land that are our border crossings and international airports. So, it may be possible for law enforcement agencies working in these areas to abide by the partial ban while still ignoring the warrant requirement because the normal rules just don't apply within 100 miles of any border crossing.

That's not to say it's a terrible bill. It just could have been a much better bill. It will prevent inland use of facial recognition tech without a warrant and, importantly, would force the federal government to develop and implement standards governing its use and (hopefully) set some baselines contractors would need to meet before selling their tech to government agencies.

At this point, the only thing Congress has done in response to the rapid deployment of facial recognition tech is express its concern and suggest some hearings might be in order. What it hasn't done is prevent the sketchy tech from being deployed as rapidly as government agencies can nail down contracts. Hitting the pause button for a few years is a far better idea than allowing things to continue to run towards the direction of amok, especially when it has been made clear most companies' offerings are biased and inaccurate.

Filed Under: ban, cory booker, facial recognition, jeff merkley

Cambridge, Massachusetts Passes Ban On Facial Recognition Tech Use By Government Agencies

from the party-on,-faceblockers dept

Congratulations to Cambridge, Massachusetts for joining the banwagon! Cambridge joins three other communities in the state which have decided facial recognition tech is too risky, too invasive of privacy, and all-around bad news for their residents. Brookline, Somerville, and Northampton have also banned the tech, potentially leading the way for a statewide ban.

A bill before the State House would also establish a statewide moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology and other forms of biometric surveillance, including the analysis of a person’s gait or voice, until the legislature regulates the software.

These communities join their West Coast counterparts in making the tech unavailable to government agencies. San Francisco and Oakland both banned the tech recently. This was followed by a statewide ban that made these efforts (mostly) redundant. But not completely. The state ban only applies to cameras operated by law enforcement officers. The city bans block all city government agencies from deploying the tech.

There really isn't any good reason for any city or state to, at the very minimum, not pass a moratorium on facial recognition use. The tech is unproven. Specs vary widely between vendors, but most of the major offerings aren't exactly burning up the charts in terms of false positives. That's still a huge problem. But it's only one of the problems.

A large percentage of false positives also means the programs are prone to false negatives, which runs contrary to law enforcement assertions the tech will aid and abet in crime-solving. You need to be able to accurately identify people to do that and high miss rates don't exactly point to increased law enforcement efficiency.

Beyond that, the tech tends to show bias, some of which can be attributed to the people building the programs. The quality of the training inputs also matters, but the race to grab market share means speed is prized over accuracy. At this point, facial recognition tech is mostly known for getting things wrong and giving white males yet another reason to be grateful they're white and male.

Unfortunately, these efforts will probably be temporary. There's no way law enforcement agencies will go without this tech for long. And these agencies wield a great deal of power when it comes to crafting legislation, especially if they're represented by a union.

As heartening as it is to see these efforts come to fruition, the widespread deployment of facial recognition tech feels almost inevitable. Maybe it isn't. But state efforts won't do much to halt the ever-expanding plans of the federal government, which is very much interested to subjecting as many Americans as possible to biometric collections, all in the name of national security. But a groundswell of state efforts could halt this advance or, at the very least, slow the surveillance rush back to a creep.

Filed Under: ban, cambridge, facial recognition, massachusetts

Turkish Government Finally Lifts Wikipedia Ban

from the you-lost,-losers dept

More than two years ago, the Turkish government blocked all of Wikipedia under the dubious legal theory it was a "threat to national security." A single offending article that linked the Turkish government to various terrorist organizations was the "threat" Turkey felt it couldn't withstand.

Wikipedia challenged this blanket ban -- which covered all of its domains, not just the Turkish version. It appealed the decision in Turkey and petitioned the European Court of Human Rights to declare the government's ban a violation of free speech rights.

The ECHR seemed inclined to give Wikipedia what it asked for. But securing a win wouldn't be enough to lift the ban. Turkey has routinely blown off ECHR verdicts, choosing to keep its human rights violations in place in exchange for periodic fines.

Unfortunately, for Recep Erdogan and his government, another decision was handed down that wasn't so easily ignored. In late December of last year, the country's top court ruled the ban was a violation of freedom of expression rights. It took a few weeks for the government to comply with the order, but the Wikimedia Foundation reports the ban has finally been lifted.

Today, on Wikipedia’s 19th birthday, the Wikimedia Foundation has received reports that access to Wikipedia in Turkey is actively being restored.* This latest development follows a 26 December 2019 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Turkey that the more than two and a half year block imposed by the Turkish government was unconstitutional. Earlier today, the Turkish Constitutional Court made the full text of that ruling available to the public, and shortly after, we received reports that access was restored to Wikipedia.

This win doesn't mean Wikipedia is dropping its ECHR petition. Even if Turkey is unlikely to comply with an ECHR ruling, another declaration of access to Wikipedia as a basic human right will make it a little more difficult for the Turkish government to institute another ban the next time it's offended.

So far, the security of the Turkish nation appears to be as intact as it ever was. Considering the government's unimpaired access to any number of media outlets, it would seem the best thing the country could have done is fight Wikipedia's speech with speech of its own. But that's never enough for authoritarians like Recep Erdogan who use a great deal of their power to silence critics under the guise of securing the nation.

Filed Under: ban, turkey, wikipedia
Companies: wikimedia