South Dakota Bans Government Employees From Using TikTok. The Countless Other Apps And Services That Hoover Up And Sell Sensitive Data Are Fine, Though
from the privacy-theater dept
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem put on a bit of a performance this week by announcing that the state would be banning government employees from installing TikTok on their phones. The effort, according to the Governor, is supposed to counter the national security risk of TikTok sharing consumer data with the Chinese government:
“South Dakota will have no part in the intelligence gathering operations of nations who hate us,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “The Chinese Communist Party uses information that it gathers on TikTok to manipulate the American people, and they gather data off the devices that access the platform.”
Of course, this being the post-truth era, the fact that there’s no actual evidence that China has even been able to exploit TikTok to manipulate Americans at any meaningful scale is just… not mentioned.
Fears that Chinese-based TikTok owner ByteDance could share U.S. consumer data with the Chinese government are at least based on reality. But as we’ve noted a few times now, the hyperbolic bloviation by many TikTok hysterics on the right (FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr comes quickly to mind) isn’t occurring in good faith, and their solution (ban TikTok) doesn’t address the actual underlying issue.
As in, the policymakers freaking out about the Chinese potentially getting access to TikTok user data are the exact same people who’ve fought tooth and nail against the U.S. having even a baseline privacy law for the Internet era. These are the exact same folks that created a data broker privacy hellscape completely free of accountability, and advocated for the dismantling of most, if not all, regulatory oversight of the sector. The result: just an endless parade of scandals, hacks, and breaches.
Now those exact same folks are breathlessly concerned when just one of countless bad actors (China) abuse a zero-accountability privacy hellscape they themselves helped to create.
You could ban TikTok tomorrow nationwide and the Chinese government could simply pivot on a dime and pay any of several dozen dodgy data brokers for most of the same data without issue. South Dakota government employees still have dozens of apps and services on their phones collecting an ocean of browsing, clickstream, or location data that then sell it to any nitwit with a nickel. That’s before you get to all the feebly-secured Chinese-based “smart home” hardware that oddly never warrants anywhere near the same attention.
We created a zero accountability privacy and security hellscape because for decades policymakers prioritized money over security, privacy, or market health. Now the exact same folks that opposed absolutely any competent oversight and guard rails (again, like Brendan Carr) want to singularly fixate on TikTok as the root of all evil — despite they themselves helping to create the problem.
Not only is such hyperventilation hollow and performative, it’s a giant distraction from our failures on consumer protection, adtech accountability, security standards, regulatory oversight, and privacy. It’s your right to believe that TikTok is the root of all evil, but it might be nice if folks hyperventilating took just a few moments to zoom out and realize TikTok is just a tiny part of a much, much bigger problem.
Filed Under: china, chinese, chinese surveillance, kristi noem, location data, phones, privacy, security, social media, south dakota, wireless
Companies: tiktok
Comments on “South Dakota Bans Government Employees From Using TikTok. The Countless Other Apps And Services That Hoover Up And Sell Sensitive Data Are Fine, Though”
Gotta Start Somewhere
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And this first step, to eliminate a digital poison, was an excellent one indeed.
Re:
Heya, Koby. Could you explain what you mean by “digital poison”?
Re:
Not one of them is planning a journey of even 100 yards, and in fact they fight to keep the space unregulated.
i’d say, “Nice try”, but the attempt doesn’t even come close to that bar.
…the Governor’s ban is only upon State-owned cell phones and devices, not personal phones of State employees at work.
seems reasonable for any government or business entity to decide what security measures are appropriate for their own equipment
Re:
The real question is why were they allowed to install apps on their work-provided phone in the first place? Any organization with sense would lock their devices down so users can’t install anything without going through at least one level of management and the department in charge of the devices!
TikTok
Follow the money, as always.
If (when) China figures out a way to buy US politicians TikTok would suddenly be acceptable.
Just grandstanding
Why would employees be installing any not previously approved software on government furnished phones or other equipment? Should have been already against policy.
Ooga booga, be afraid of the commies!
As always when the subject comes up it’s so funny how many people suddenly got super interested in user privacy when it came to one specific platform, I’m sure there’s something that differentiates it from all the others that get a pass but I just can’t put my finger on it…
“South Dakota will have no part in the intelligence gathering operations of nations who hate us,” said Governor Kristi Noem.
If this was more than a PR stunt then as the article so rightly pointed out that would rule out basically every online platform or online service since with no meaningful privacy laws on the books they’ve all got nothing but incentives to grab and sell all the data they can get their hands on.
If user privacy was actually the primary motivation for acts like this then even if the chinese government directly ran Tiktok it would still be a secondary concern at best, with the primary cutting off the flow of user data from all the companies grabbing it rather than just the one.
Come on, the conservatives believe that if China wants that data. They should have to buy it form shady American data brokers like everyone else.
Do better
The main point of this article, while valid, is seriously undercut by it’s failure to mention that the ban applies only to state owned phones/devices. Neglecting to mention that gives this article a click-baity/sensationalist feel. Complete with a touch of irony by calling out the “post truth era” while at the same time committing a pretty serious lie by omission. I expect better from Techdirt.
Re:
I never frequented TD other than scanning headlines on occasion, but I’ve seen some low aptitude dialogue that makes daily’ing it not a priority (some comments have value, but many seem like bots).
Re: Yep, total clickbait
I agree. This is an extremely disappointing article that makes me question TechDirt’s journalistic integrity of late. I’ve been a regular reader for the better part of two decades, but this kind of sensationalized, biased writing is becoming too common.
I frankly don’t see much issue other than the foolish political posturing that accompanied the ban. Guess what? I can’t install any social network apps on my work laptop, and most of the sites are blocked, even when I’m outside the network. I would expect the state to have equivalent levels of cybersecurity. Frankly, NO personal apps should be on state mobile phones. If government employees want them, they should get a personal phone.
Re: Re:
I think you are missing the point of the article. It’s not that SD employees are being deprived of TikTok on their work devices. The point is that the messaging of it is all political theater. If politicians were actually worried about China having easy access to personal information, then we’d have actual privacy laws put into place. Blocking TikTok does nothing to stop the flow of that info to China.
Re: Re: Re:
… the other thing that makes this political theater is, as previous posters have said, “why are employees allowed to install random apps on state-owned device in the first place?”
If the South Dakota state government did not already have policies (and phone configurations) against that, that is a HUGE security hole. And if they did, then the governor is playing to an ignorant audience: TikTok on state phones is already a non-issue.
Either way, it’s not a good look.
Re: Re:
“I frankly don’t see much issue other than the foolish political posturing that accompanied the ban.”
That is the main point, though. This doesn’t really do anything other than announce a vendetta against a specific target. A more effective tactic would be to create a whitelist of allowed apps (which can be enforced with effective management). Announcing that one specific site is not allowed is ineffective posturing.
“Frankly, NO personal apps should be on state mobile phones.”
I agree to an extent, but some employees will have a reason to use social media, etc., apps for their role. They shouldn’t be using them to check their personal Facebook, etc., but those sites can also be effective tools for communicating with the public, and there’s no difference in terms of the app you install.
i would therefore have to assume that those doing the banning are getting a nice backhand payment from all the other apps!! nothing like money to keep you in favor!!
Translation: “Residents of my State might be “manipulated” in to voting me out of office.”
Talk about dropping clues as to one’s real intent….
sumgai
i’d rather bet China gets better data buying bulk from brokers anyway.
Nothing to see here. As others have noted, this is just posturing. There are already strict rules and restrictions on employee’s cell phones. What isn’t mentioned are all of the third party vendors that have government contracts for various training programs, etc. Government employees routinely use programs and services without considering privacy implications because the job demands its usage.
Useless Grandstanding by Gov.
If you follow the link, the ban applies only to state-owned devices. Who would put Tik-Tok on their work phone? I guess this applies to the dozen or so state employees who handle the media operations for their agencies and might communicate or advertise through Tik-tok and other social media. In fact, I’m guessing that existing regulations already limit the installation of social media apps on state-owned devices.