• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    18 hours ago

    They did. Divisions H and I of HR 815 of the 118th Congress make it illegal to collect, broker, lease, trade, or sell US Citizen’s personally identifying data to an adversarial nation which is defined in Article 10 as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.

    You’re complaining about the law and you literally have no idea what that law says?

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Data privacy is so much more than “selling data to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.” What a weak rebuttal.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        So nothing short of a complete ban of all social media and advertising is Data Privacy to you, then?

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Something like GDPR would be the sane, non-strawman take.

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The problem is this doesn’t apply across the board. Why is it only illegal if they’re selling it to a foreign company? It should be illegal to sell it full stop. This just gives the US government a monopoly on the information which I’m more afraid of than a foreign country having my data since I live here and they can directly affect me.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        They made it illegal to sell it to people who explicitly want to harm the USA. Thats a good start.

        Ironically, most USA based social media platforms are already banned in China. It just makes sense, if TikTok wants to operate here they need the chinese owners to divest to below 20% or stop sending personal data overseas.

        • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Ah ok so we should start doing the things China does then? I think them banning social media platforms is also bad when the bans are just done for the sake of monopolizing social media platforms under the control of the government. Decentralized platforms like this are a nice way around that but most people aren’t gonna use them. So having platforms based in different countries to allow different perspectives on stories like with Israel/Palestine is good. Cause if we can only access American social media platforms you know they’re just gonna fully suppress coverage on issues that America and various lobbying groups don’t want to be talked about.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 hours ago

            By banning FaceBook, China is keeping itself safe from influence that could be used as a weapon to cause great and irreparable damages.

            Whether I want harm to come to them is besides the point that it is a rational and logical decision.

            I think the disconnect here is that you don’t think they are weapons, that you don’t think they will be used to commit harm.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      So technically you’re right, but the law they passed left a HUGE loophole. And by loophole I mean just don’t be based on those counties and you can gobble up whatever data you like.

      • JackbyDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s not even a “loophole” it’s literally irrelevant to what people generally think of as “data privacy.” Something like GDPR is an example of data privacy.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        You also can’t send the data there or be more than 20% owned by non-US-citizen citizens of those countries.

        TikTok owners have stated repeatedly that they will shut down this Sunday rather than sell.

        • MimicJar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Sure, but even if TikTok sold it wouldn’t solve the problem. Hell them not selling also doesn’t solve the problem.

          The problem is that data is gobbled up and sold. Data/privacy protection laws to stop that would be useful.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            I choose to believe a hostile foreign dictatorship means more harm than a hostile domestic for profit business.

            Probably because that aligns with what each of them says they want, to say nothing of their actions.

            Bht hey, if at least one of them gets banned thats a win.

    • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Cool so what does this law do for me again? I live in America i personally will never interact with those 4 countries. The wording is also dangerous calling Chinaa foreign adversary comparable with the other 3. Which is dangerous. We are in active war with 3 where as China we do massive business.

      Passed in April 2024 so useful when Facebook was a broker for Russia in 2016 DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT

      Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

      (Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.

      Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)

      For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.

      A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)

      would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
      precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).
      

      The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.

      Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.

      The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.

      (Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.

      DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

      Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024

      This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).

      Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).

      A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.

      The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        It would be easy and rational to attribute misinformation memes like this to ignorance, but to be honest I can’t help by imagine it is malice.

        • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          There’s definitely some malice in there i don’t doubt, which likely bleeds into the unwillingness to prove one’s biases wrong