The US is banning TikTok and WeChat — but the benefits won’t outweigh the costs
National security threat?
The threats posed by TikTok and WeChat, according to theexecutiveorders, include the potential for the platforms to be used for disinformation campaigns by the Chinese government and to give the Chinese government access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information.
Disinformation campaigns may be of particular concern, due to the upcoming election and the impact of the alleged “sweeping and systematic”Russian interferencein the 2016 elections. The potential forespionageis less pronounced, given that the apps access basic contact information and details about the videos Americans watch and the topics they search on, and not more sensitive data.The U.S. is not the only country concerned about Chinese apps. The Australian militaryaccused WeChat, a messaging, social media and mobile payment app, of acting as spyware, saying the app was caught sending data to Chinese Intelligence servers.
But banning the apps andrequiring Chinese divestiturealso has a national security downside. Itdamages the U.S.‘s moral authorityto push for free speech and democracy abroad. Critics have frequently contended thatAmerica’s moral authorityhas been severely damagedduring the Trump administrationand this action could arguably add to the decline.
Protecting personal information
The administration’s principal argument against TikTok is that it collects Americans’ personal data and could provide it to the Chinese government. The executive order states that thiscould allow Chinato track the locations of federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail and conduct corporate espionage.
Skeptics have argued that the governmenthasn’t presented clear evidenceof privacy issues and that the service’s practices arestandard in the industry. TikTok’s terms of service dosay that it can share informationwith its China-based corporate parent, ByteDance.
Theorder against WeChatis similar. It also mentions that the app captures the personal and proprietary information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States. However, some of these visiting Chinese nationals have expressed concern that banning WeChat maylimit their ability to communicatewith friends and family in China.
WhileTikTokandWeChatdo raise cybersecurity concerns, they are not significantly different from those raised by other smart phone apps. In my view, these concerns could be better addressed byenacting national privacy legislation, similar toEurope’s GDPRandCalifornia’s CCPA, to dictate how data is collected and used and where it is stored. Another remedy is to have Google, Apple and others review the apps for cybersecurity concerns before allowing new versions to be made available in their app stores.
Freedom of speech
Perhaps the greatest concern raised by the bans are their impact on people’s ability to communicate, and whether they violate theFirst Amendment. Both TikTok and WeChat are communications channels and TikTok publishes and hosts content.
While the courts have allowed some regulation of speech, to withstand a legal challenge the restrictionsmust advance a legitimate government interest and be “narrowly tailored”to do so. National security is a legitimate governmental interest. However, in my opinion it’s questionablewhether a real national security concern existswith these specific apps.
In the case of TikTok, banning an app that is being used forpolitical commentaryandactivismwould raise pronounced constitutional claims and likely be overturned by the courts.
Whether the banshold up in court, the executive orders instituting them put the U.S. in uncomfortable territory: the list of countries that have banned social media platforms. These includeEgypt,Hong Kong,Turkey,Turkmenistan,North Korea,Iran,Belarus,RussiaandChina.
Though the U.S. bans may not be aimed at curtailing dissent, they echo actions that harm free speech and democracy globally. Social media gives freedom fighters, protesters and dissidents all over the world a voice. It enables citizens to voice concerns andorganize protestsaboutmonarchies,sexualand otherhuman rights abuses,discriminatory lawsandcivil rightsviolations. Whenauthoritariangovernments clamp down on dissent, they frequentlytargetsocial media.
Risk of retaliation
The bans could also harm the U.S. economy because other countries could ban U.S. companies in retaliation. China and the U.S. have already gone through a cycle ofreciprocal company banning, in addition toreciprocal consulate closures.
The U.S. hasplacedChinese telecom firm Huawei on theBureau of Industry Security Entity List, preventing U.S. firms from conducting business with it. While this hasprevented Huawei from selling wireless hardwarein the U.S., it has alsoprevented U.S. software sales to the telecom giantand caused it touse its own chips instead of buying them from U.S. firms.
Over a dozen U.S. companiesurged the White Housenot to ban WeChat because it would hurt their business in China.
Other countries might use the U.S. bans of Chinese firms as justification for banning U.S. companies, even though the U.S. has not taken action against them or their companies directly. These trade restrictions harm the U.S.‘smoral authority,harm the global economyandstifle innovation. They also cut U.S. firms off from thehigh-growth Chinese market.
TikTok is in negotiations with Microsoft and Walmart and an Oracle-led consortium about apossible acquisitionthat would leave the company with American ownership and negate the ban.
Oversight, not banishment
Though the TikTok and WeChat apps do raise some concerns, it is not apparent that cause exists to ban them. The issues could be solved through better oversight and the enactment of privacy laws that could otherwise benefit Americans.
Of course, the government could have other causes for concern that it hasn’t yet made public. Given the consequences of banning an avenue of expression, if other concerns exist the government should share them with the American public. If not, I’d argue less drastic action would be more appropriate and better serve the American people.
This article is republished fromThe ConversationbyJeremy Straub, Assistant Professor of Computer Science,North Dakota State Universityunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
