TikTok is once again fending off claims that its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, would share user data from its popular video-sharing app with the Chinese government, or push propaganda and misinformation on its behalf.
China’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday accused the United States itself of spreading disinformation about TikTok’s potential security risks following a report in the Wall Street Journal that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US — part of the Treasury Department — was threatening a US ban on the app unless its Chinese owners divest their stake.
So are the data security risks real? And should users be worried that the TikTok app will be wiped off their phones?
Here’s what to know:
What are the concerns about TikTok?
Both the FBI and the Federal Communications Commission have warned that ByteDance could share TikTok user data — such as browsing history, location and biometric identifiers — with China’s authoritarian government.
A law implemented by China in 2017 requires companies to give the government any personal data relevant to the country’s national security. There’s no evidence that TikTok has turned over such data, but fears abound due to the vast amount of user data it, like other social media companies, collects.
Concerns around TikTok were heightened in December when ByteDance said it fired four employees who accessed data on two journalists from Buzzfeed News and The Financial Times while attempting to track down the source of a leaked report about the company.
How is the US responding?
White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby declined to comment when asked Thursday to address the Chinese foreign ministry’s comments about TikTok, citing the review being conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment.
Kirby also could not confirm that the administration sent TikTok a letter warning that the US government may ban the application if its Chinese owners don’t sell its stake but added, “we have legitimate national security concerns with respect to data integrity that we need to observe.”
In 2020, then-President Donald Trump and his administration sought to force ByteDance to sell off its US assets and ban TikTok from app stores. Courts blocked the effort, and President Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s orders but ordered an in-depth study of the issue. A planned sale of TikTok’s US assets was also shelved as the Biden administration negotiated a deal with TikTok that would address some of the national security concerns.
In Congress, US Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Jerry Moran, a Democrat and a Republican, wrote a letter in February to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urging the Committee on Foreign Investment panel, which she chairs, to “swiftly conclude its investigation and impose strict structural restrictions” between TikTok’s American operations and ByteDance, including potentially separating the companies.
At the same time, lawmakers have introduced measures that would expand the Biden administration’s authority to enact a national ban on TikTok. The White House has already backed a Senate proposal that has bipartisan support.
How has TikTok already been restricted?
On Thursday, British authorities said they are banning TikTok on government-issued phones on security grounds, following similar moves by the European Union’s executive branch, which temporarily banned TikTok from employee phones. Denmark and Canada have also announced efforts to block it on government-issued phones.
Last month, the White House said it would give US federal agencies 30 days to delete TikTok from all government-issued mobile devices. Congress, the US armed forces and more than half of US states had already banned the app.
What does TikTok say?
TikTok spokesperson Maureen Shanahan said the company was already answering security concerns through “transparent, US-based protection of US user data and systems, with robust third-party monitoring, vetting, and verification.”
In June, TikTok said it would route all data from US users to servers controlled by Oracle, the Silicon Valley company it chose as its US tech partner in 2020 in an effort to avoid a nationwide ban. But it is storing backups of the data in its own servers in the US and Singapore. The company said it expects to delete US user data from its own servers, but it has not provided a timeline as to when that would occur.
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is set to testify next week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the company’s privacy and data-security practices, as well as its relationship with the Chinese government.
Meanwhile, TikTok’s parent company ByteDance has been trying to position itself as more of an international company — and less of a Chinese company that was founded in Beijing in 2012 by its current chief executive Liang Rubo and others.
Theo Bertram, TikTok’s vice president of policy in Europe, said in a Tweet Thursday that ByteDance “is not a Chinese company.” Bertram said its ownership consists of 60 percent by global investors, 20 percent employees and 20 percent founders. Its leaders are based in cities like Singapore, New York, Beijing and other metropolitan areas.
Are the security risks legitimate?
It depends on who you ask.
Some tech privacy advocates say while the potential abuse of privacy by the Chinese government is concerning, other tech companies have data-harvesting business practices that also exploit user information.
“If policy makers want to protect Americans from surveillance, they should advocate for a basic privacy law that bans all companies from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone,” said Evan Greer, director of the nonprofit advocacy group Fight for the Future.
Karim Farhat, a researcher with the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, said a TikTok sale would be “completely irrelevant to any of the alleged ‘national security’ threats” and go against “every free market principle and norm” of the state department’s Internet freedom principles.
Others say there is legitimate reason for concern.
People who use TikTok might think they’re not doing anything that would be of interest to a foreign government, but that’s not always the case, said Anton Dahbura, executive director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. Important information about the United States is not strictly limited to nuclear power plants or military facilities; it extends to other sectors, such as food processing, the finance industry and universities, Dahbura said.
Is there precedence for banning tech companies?
Last year, the US banned the sale of communications equipment made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE, citing risks to national security. But banning the sale of items could be more easily done than banning an app, which is accessed through the web.
Such a move might also go to the courts on grounds that it might violate the First Amendment as some civil liberties groups have argued.
Why TikTok’s security risks keep raising fears
https://arab.news/r6pvt
Why TikTok’s security risks keep raising fears
- In 2020, then-President Donald Trump sought to force ByteDance to sell off its US assets and ban TikTok from app stores
- Courts blocked the effort, and President Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s orders but ordered an in-depth study of the issue
BBC staff in open letter accuse broadcaster of pro-Israel bias
- Over 100 employees demand corporation ‘recommit to fairness, accuracy and impartiality’
- Letter signed by more than 230 figures in UK’s media industry, other sectors
LONDON: More than 100 BBC employees have accused the British broadcaster of pro-Israel bias in its coverage of the Gaza war.
The claim was made in an open letter signed by more than 230 figures in the UK’s media industry and other sectors, who said the public broadcaster has failed to provide “fair and accurate” coverage of the conflict. It was sent to Tim Davie, director general of the BBC.
The letter, first seen by The Independent, said the BBC must “recommit to fairness, accuracy and impartiality.”
The BBC employees who signed the letter did so anonymously, with one telling The Independent that “so many of us feel paralysed by levels of fear.”
They added: “Colleagues have left the BBC in recent months because they just don’t believe our reporting on Israel and Palestine is honest.”
Prominent members of Britain’s political, media and academic class signed the letter, including Sayeeda Warsi, a Muslim member of the House of Lords; historian William Dalrymple; actress Juliet Stevenson; Dr. Catherine Happer, a senior lecturer in sociology and director of media at the University of Glasgow; Rizwana Hamid, director at the Centre for Media Monitoring; broadcaster John Nicolson; and columnist Owen Jones.
The BBC must “robustly challenge Israeli government and military representatives in all interviews,” the signatories said.
In September, BBC Chairman Samir Shah said the board would “seriously consider” a review into the broadcaster’s Middle East coverage.
It followed claims by Jewish groups that the BBC is suffering from an “extreme” anti-Israel bias and that it is failing to properly manage complaints.
The open letter calls on the BBC to make new editorial commitments, including “reiterating that Israel does not give external journalists access to Gaza; making it clear when there is insufficient evidence to back up Israeli claims; making clear where Israel is the perpetrator in article headlines; and including regular historical context predating October 2023.”
One example of a “dehumanizing and misleading headline” cited by signatories related to Israel’s killing of 6-year-old Hind Rajab in January this year. The BBC headline read: “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help.”
The letter to the BBC said: “This was not an act of God. The perpetrator, Israel, should have been in the headline, and it should have been clear that she was killed.”
Another anonymous BBC employee told The Independent: “Palestinians are always treated as an unreliable source and we constantly give Israel’s version of events primacy despite the IDF’s (Israel Defense Forces) well-documented track record of lying.
“We often seem to prefer to leave Israel out of the headline if at all possible or cast doubt on who could be to blame for airstrikes.
“The verification level expected for anything related to Gaza hugely outweighs what is the norm for other countries.”
In response to the letter, a BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster holds itself “to very high standards,” adding: “This conflict is one of the most polarising stories to report on, and we know people feel very strongly about how this is being reported.
“The BBC receives almost equal measure of complaints asserting that we are biased towards Israel, as we do asserting we are biased against it.
“This does not mean we assume we are doing something right, and we continue to listen to all criticism — from inside and outside the BBC — and reflect on what we can do better.”
Mauritius reverses ban on social media
PORT LUIS, Mauritius: Mauritius on Saturday reversed its decision to block social media until its election that had been prompted by a wire-tapping scandal.
The ban on social media had been in place for 24 hours, with users on the Indian Ocean island unable to access Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X.
It was due to last until November 11 — the day after the general election.
The ban was prompted by the release of secret recordings of phone calls by politicians, journalists, members of civil society and even foreign diplomats that began to emerge online last month.
The office of Prime Minister Pravind Kumar Jugnauth had said that “the national security and integrity of our republic and our international partners may have been compromised” by the leaks.
But in a statement on Saturday, the Information and Communications Authority said the ban had been lifted after “consultation with competent authorities.”
There had been uproar from opposition parties and local media groups, who rely heavily on social media.
The leaked recordings were released by an account called Missie Moustass (Mr Moustache), primarily on TikTok.
There have been attempts to block the account but it quickly resurfaced elsewhere and has been releasing recordings almost daily.
Among those causing the greatest shock was that of the police commissioner apparently asking a forensic doctor to alter a report into a person who died after being beaten in police custody. A judicial investigation into the death was launched following the leak.
Private calls featuring British High Commissioner Charlotte Pierre also appear to have been leaked.
Jugnauth is seeking re-election as head of the Militant Socialist Movement.
He inherited the premiership on the death of his father in 2017 and secured a victory for his coalition in polls two years later.
Israel moves to sever ties with Haaretz following publisher’s ‘freedom fighters’ remarks
- Publisher Amos Schocken delivered harsh criticism of Israeli policies, prompting government to call for restrictions on newspaper
LONDON: Israel is moving to sever ties and impose restrictions on the newspaper Haaretz after its publisher Amos Schocken referred to Palestinians as “freedom fighters” in a speech in London on Sunday.
Israel’s Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi on Thursday submitted a proposal calling for a range of restrictions on Haaretz following Schocken’s comments.
Moves include halting any new government contracts with the newspaper, including individual subscriptions for state employees, and canceling current agreements wherever legally feasible.
“All current agreements with Haaretz, including personal subscriptions, will be canceled as legally feasible,” Karhi’s proposal said, adding that the Government Advertising Bureau will be directed to withdraw all advertisements from the publication and seek refunds for any outstanding payments.
The proposal follows a similar measure put forward by Karhi in November 2023 when he accused Haaretz of undermining Israel’s war effort in Gaza.
Interior Minister Moshe Arbel also ordered an immediate halt to cooperation with Haaretz on Wednesday, saying in a letter that the government “cannot and will not remain silent in the face of harm to IDF soldiers and the state’s efforts to protect its citizens.”
The Interior Ministry’s official statement described Schocken’s comments as “deeply offensive and revealing a fundamental departure from core values.”
Speaking at a Haaretz conference in London — titled “Israel After Oct. 7: Ally or Alone?” — Schocken criticized Israeli policies and the current government, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration of “imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population.”
He told attendees: “It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.”
Schocken, who has led the left-leaning publication since 1990, condemned Israel’s settlement policies, asserting that the only viable solution was the establishment of a Palestinian state.
He said: “A Palestinian state must be established. And the only way to achieve this, I think, is to apply sanctions against Israel, against the leaders who oppose it, and against the settlers.”
Following a strong backlash, Schocken clarified his remarks to indicate that he did not consider groups like Hamas to be “freedom fighters,” and emphasized his support for those who resisted occupation without resorting to terrorism.
He said: “Given the reactions to my labeling Palestinians who commit acts of terror as freedom fighters, I have reconsidered my words.
“Many freedom fighters around the world and throughout history, possibly even those who fought for Israel’s establishment, committed terrible acts of terrorism, harming innocent people to achieve their goals.
“I should have said freedom fighters who also resort to terror tactics — which must be combated. The use of terror is not legitimate.”
Schocken, the son of Gershom Schocken who was the editor and publisher of Haaretz for over 50 years, faced similar criticism in September for advocating international intervention against the Netanyahu administration, comparing the situation in Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.
Indonesia bans sales of Google smartphones days after blocking Apple’s iPhone 16
- Block comes a week after Indonesia said it had blocked the sales of iPhone 16 domestically, also for not meeting local content rules
- Indonesia has a huge, tech-savvy population, making the Southeast Asian nation a key target market for tech-related investment
JAKARTA: Indonesia said it has banned sales of smartphones made by Alphabet’s Google due to rules requiring the use of locally manufactured components, days after blocking sales of tech giant Apple’s iPhone 16 for the same reason.
Indonesia blocked sales of Google Pixel phones because the company has not met the rules which necessitate certain smartphones sold domestically to contain at least 40 percent of parts manufactured locally.
“We are pushing these rules so that there’s fairness for all investors in Indonesia,” Febri Hendri Antoni Arief, industry ministry spokesperson, said on Thursday. “Google’s products have not adhered to the scheme we set, so they can’t be sold here.”
Febri said consumers can buy Google Pixel phones overseas, so long as they pay the necessary taxes, adding the country would consider deactivating the phones that are illicitly sold.
Google did not immediately respond to a message and email requesting comment.
The block comes a week after Indonesia said it had blocked the sales of iPhone 16 domestically, also for not meeting local content rules.
Companies usually increase the use of domestic components to meet such rules through partnerships with local suppliers or by sourcing parts domestically.
Google and Apple are not among the top smartphone makers in Indonesia. The top two smartphone makers in the first quarter of 2024 were Chinese firm OPPO and South Korean firm Samsung, research firm IDC said in May.
Indonesia has a huge, tech-savvy population, making the Southeast Asian nation a key target market for tech-related investment.
Bhima Yudhistira, director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies think tank, said the move was “pseudo” protectionism that hurts consumers and impacts investor confidence.
“This creates a negative sentiment for investors looking to enter Indonesia,” he said.
‘Polarization of journalism’ rising amid Israel attacking, killing media workers
- Reporters not respected anymore, says veteran journalist Mohamad Chebaro
DUBAI: On Oct. 25, an airstrike in south Lebanon killed Al-Mayadeen TV’s camera operator Ghassan Najjar, broadcast engineer Mohammed Reda, and Hezbollah-owned Al-Manar TV’s camera operator Wissam Qassem.
It also injured several others including camera operator Hassan Hoteit and assistant camera operator Zakaria Fadel of the media production company Isol.
Other journalists hurt were photographer Hassan Hoteit from Al-Qahera channel, and Youmna Fawaz, a correspondent for MTV, according to media reports.
The Israeli army said the strike, which hit a compound housing 18 journalists from multiple media outlets, targeted Hezbollah militants; however, many believe it was a planned attack on journalists.
Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati said the attack was deliberate and both he and Information Minister Ziad Makary labelled it a war crime.
“The Israeli enemy waited for the journalists’ nighttime break to betray them in their sleep ... This is an assassination, after monitoring and tracking, with prior planning and design, as there were 18 journalists there representing seven media institutions. This is a war crime,” Makary said in a post on X.
انتظر العدو الاسرائيلي استراحة الصحافيين الليلية لكي يغدر بهم في منامهم، وهم لم يتوقفوا خلال الأشهر الماضية عن تغطية الخبر في الميدان ونقله كشفاً عن جرائمه الموصوفة.
— Ziad T. Makary (@ZiadMakary) October 25, 2024
هذا اغتيال، بعد رصد وتعقب، عن سابق تصور وتصميم، إذ كان يتواجد في المكان ١٨ صحافياً يمثلون ٧ مؤسسات إعلامية.
هذه…
Jewish Currents condemns Israel’s targeting of Palestinian journalists in the strongest terms, and calls upon every media institution in the United States to do the same. Here's our statement on the recent Israeli threats against six Al Jazeera journalists reporting from Gaza. pic.twitter.com/AcDRks6JIF
— Jewish Currents (@JewishCurrents) October 24, 2024
Even the BBC are catching up.
— Howard Beckett (@BeckettUnite) October 25, 2024
Journalists gave their locations in Lebanon believing it would keep them safe.
Israel used those locations to target and murder 3 journalists.
Even the BBC report it’s being called a war crime.pic.twitter.com/rtapdG9Unn
BREAKING: Israel kills journalists after targeting their hotel in Hasbaya, southern Lebanon.
— Steve Sweeney (@SweeneySteve) October 25, 2024
Al-Mayadeen broadcast engineer Mohammad Reda, photographer Ghassan Najjar and Al-Manar TV photographer Wissam Qassem were killed in what seems to be a deliberate strike.
“We hold the… pic.twitter.com/8QExUMot49
Israel deliberately bombed a journalists' residence in Lebanon and killed three brave journalists while they were sleeping.
— Mohamad Safa (@mhdksafa) October 25, 2024
This violates Article 79 of Additional Protocol (I) Geneva Conventions, but international law clearly does not apply to Israel. pic.twitter.com/jzaZn0Jwu9
The Committee to Protect Journalists said it was appalled by the attack, and called for an independent investigation and for the perpetrators to be held to account.
The CPJ is “deeply outraged by yet another deadly Israeli airstrike on journalists,” said its program director Carlos Martinez de la Serna, adding that “deliberately targeting journalists is a war crime under international law.”
“I used to go to conflict zones in the past and journalists were received by all parties with open arms,” said Mohamad Chebaro, a British-Lebanese journalist with over 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.
But “I have been increasingly witnessing the polarization of journalism” by companies or political parties wherein journalists are seen as being “with or against” entities — whether that is a corporation or a country, he told Arab News.
Chebaro explained that “warring parties” feel the need to have their own “media machine,” which makes independent journalism a rare concept. And so “killing the messenger has become easy for every party trying to control the narrative of every conflict.”
He added: “Lebanon is no different than Gaza. Gaza is no different than Syria. And Syria is no different than Iran before it.”
On Monday, Lebanon submitted a complaint to the Security Council “regarding the latest Israeli attacks that targeted journalists and media facilities in Hasbaya in south Lebanon, and the Ouzai area” in Beirut’s southern suburbs, according to the Foreign Ministry on X.
“The repeated Israeli targeting of media crews is a war crime,” and Israel must be “held to account and punished,” the statement added.
Over 400 media workers and journalists from international news organizations have condemned Israel’s attacks on Palestinian journalists in Gaza in a letter released on Oct. 30.
The letter also addresses the escalation of attacks on journalists in Lebanon. It called for the immediate medical evacuations of all injured journalists, protection of those who remain, and fair reporting on Gaza and the condition of Palestinian media workers there.
“We affirm that no one is more qualified to report and deliver the news from Gaza than local journalists, and it is the professional and personal duty of all journalists and media institutions to ensure their protection,” the letter added.
The attack on journalists is in many ways an attack on journalism and the truth, Chebaro said.
He added: “Human beings are not respected in the theater of war anymore. There is a breakdown of the respect and the sanctity of the job of a journalist.
“And unfortunately, we have gone away from the old ethos of looking at a journalist as an independent informing voice.”
As of Oct. 31, the CPJ’s preliminary investigations showed at least 134 journalists and media workers were among those killed in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and Lebanon since Oct. 7, 2023.
This makes it the deadliest period for journalists since the CPJ began gathering data in 1992.
