It is called a fortified democracy. And absolute democracy like the Weimarer Republik is a dangerous thing. All modern democracies are fortified these days. And it is good that they are. And yes if the US is caught with the hand in the cookie jar the nation in question is not happy, but there is a difference: Spying is passive and not influencing the democratic process of the nation or disrupting it.
The concern with Tiktok is that it is active, trying to disrupt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T_Lu1S0sII
Also, unlike the Bytedance and the Chinese Government, US companies do not run intelligence operations. They are in it solely for the money, otherwise the NSA wouldn't have had to snoop on Google in 2013(?).
and this point
> And also dismantle the law where the US can request any data on any person, even abroad, if the company is US-based
I find questionable. It is too blanketed.
There are international criminals afoot after all. Red Letters do have their purpose as do international treaties for law enforcement to cooperate across borders in a bespoke manner in accordance with their and international laws.
> I find questionable. It is too blanketed. There are international criminals afoot after all. Red Letters do have their purpose as do international treaties for law enforcement to cooperate across borders in a bespoke manner in accordance with their and international laws.
There's a difference between "Hey, France, we would like this info on a known criminal" and "U.S.-based companies have to turn over all data on any person regardless of that data location or the nationality of the person in question".
That's basically the basis for both Schrems I and Schrems II.
The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil
Other jurisdictions have something similar, every company must adhere to the laws of the jurisdiction they want to operate in.
You don't like it as a company, not a problem just don't incorporate in the US and live with the repercussion.
There is nothing that suggests that it is out of the ordinary or malicious.
Where it becomes interesting is access without a warrant, or with a muzzle attached, at large scale. That is the clandestine stuff. The purview of intelligence agencies.
That has been addressed by the EU with legislation; privacy shield was not really the hit, but guess what: MS complied. https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-roll-out-data-b... so spooks from the US will now have a harder time accessing user data at scale without a warrant.
No. Feel free to educate me though. Only request I have, nothing older than 30 years please as I feel it may not be relevant any longer and before long we would argue about the antebellum period and what have you not. And it must be large scale.
Also, unlike the Bytedance and the Chinese Government, US companies do not run intelligence operations. They are in it solely for the money, otherwise the NSA wouldn't have had to snoop on Google in 2013(?).
and this point
> And also dismantle the law where the US can request any data on any person, even abroad, if the company is US-based
I find questionable. It is too blanketed. There are international criminals afoot after all. Red Letters do have their purpose as do international treaties for law enforcement to cooperate across borders in a bespoke manner in accordance with their and international laws.