this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
317 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
59656 readers
2708 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the paranoia is what I was looking for, so thank you for delivering!
For the most obvious: idk, I think people should generally have a healthy distrust of those in government positions. Maybe ideally not, but in reality, it's necessary to not be taken advantage of by any manner of power hungry people. If tiktok half truths inspire someone to start actually looking at what xyz government has done, then that's a win in my book. If they just eat the half truths as is straight from tiktok, that's when there's a problem, but that's what my "why don't they educate people on how to spot propaganda" is to address.
Less reasonable: I think people should be allowed to do what they want to do long as it doesn't infringe on the health and safety of another. I guess you can split hairs about it decreasing health due to people working out less or something like that, but I don't think that's a good enough reason for government action.
Unreasonable: this actually seems the most reasonable to me, believe it or not. Military people posting the wrong thing at the wrong time from even a personal account can and has had bad effects on security before. That's why I would support a ban of any spyware-like app on government devices and on military bases (this was originally only support for a ban on gov devices, but I think if we're thinking about security, banning it in places where leaks may cost lives makes sense)
As for the endless possibilities of leveraging mental illness knowledge of a user, I'm afraid I can't imagine what one could do. The only time I can imagine that would really matter is if China takes over the US and goes full genocide on the population. I think the world would go down in nuclear flames before that would happen though...
If the app was literally called "CCP Government Monitor and Sensor Node" would you say the same thing about people being free to use it how they please? At the very least you would recommend any phone with it installed be banned from any government location or strategic location and people who use it scrutinized. As it currently stands, people don't believe that's what it is because they like it.
If you accept what the government is trying to communicate about it, the lines around individual freedom and the freedom to endanger others becomes pretty clear. You have the freedoms to work with explosives but you have no right to take a bomb on a military base. It is the same with data models. Having worked in machine learning and defense, I'm inclined to believe it. I acknowledge that I'm biased here but take my opinion for what it's worth.
I would say malicious malware shouldn't be sold on the app store and that anyone who hosts it should suffer whatever fallout it comes with (not the end users, the apk providers). However, due to the US being The Way That It Is™, we don't actually have any recourse like that for providers of malware. As for spyware.... I guess it probably should be handled like malware too. Eh you got me lol
I've said a couple different places in this thread I support a ban of tiktok on government phones and in at least one other place I support a ban of it on military bases, but my main issue was that I couldn't figure out how it could be used for nefarious purposes outside of government phones or areas.
As for "you have the right to work with the data models, but not remove the data from US soil", that's a new one, I'll have to think about that some more. Good point though, I think.