Re:TikTok updated privacy policy to collect faceprints and v...
by dirtyid on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @03:53PM
(#31924947)
Is Trump EO not also a gun to bytedance head? Apple could choose to discontinue cloud services and setup backdoor to physical iDevices access which would have made their products not competitive, but they chose to play ball same way Bytedance did. It's both lawfare coercion. It's functionally the same - subborn domestic data within framework accessible by domestic legislation. As for defending either idea, I think it's fine, everyone watches out for their interest including putting guns to heads.
Re:TikTok updated privacy policy to collect faceprints and v...
by kube-system on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @04:03PM
(#31925046)
No, because EOs do not hold ultimate power in the US. Bytedance also had the (quite realistic) option to challenge the executive through the US's independent judiciary. Ultimately, they took this option and they were successful, and they maintain ownership of TikTok assets in the US to this day.
There aren't any functional counterparts to these checks on power in China that would have been relevant to Apple/GBCD. There's no independent judiciary or alternative ruling party.
Re:TikTok updated privacy policy to collect faceprints and v...
by dirtyid on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @05:15PM
(#31925809)
Is Trump EO not also a gun to bytedance head? Apple could choose to discontinue cloud services and setup backdoor to physical iDevices access which would have made their products not competitive, but they chose to play ball same way Bytedance did. It's both lawfare coercion. It's functionally the same - subborn domestic data within framework accessible by domestic legislation. As for defending either idea, I think it's fine, everyone watches out for their interest including putting guns to heads.
Apple "chose" to agree to this deal with a gun to their head, the only other "option" being that they would be banned from the Chinese market. This isn't just because they have a data sovereignty requirement, but also because they have requirements regarding the sovereignty of a company's corporate governance structure.
>TikTok/Bytedance was one Trump EO away from being force sold to US companies (actual nationalization)
I'm not defending that idea, but a forced sale is categorically not nationalization. The whole impetus for the idea was that Trump's "eye for an eye" approach regarding what he saw as unfair practices against other US companies that tried to operate there. And in the end, Bytedance challenged it, and it never came to fruition.