That is seemingly the question. We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3y79llndo) where the headline gives us ‘TikTok to begin appeal against being sold or banned in US’ with the added text “TikTok will start making its case on Monday against a law that will see it banned in the US unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells it within nine months.” I don’t really have a voice in this. I do not use TikTok, I don’t have the app. I use YouTube and YouTube shorts and that fits me just fine. There is only so much procrastinating a person can do until the battery of his mobile/tablet gives out. I have nothing against TikTok, but YouTube got here first and it does more than I ever needed.
And for the text “The measure – signed into law by President Biden in April – has been prompted by concerns that US users’ data is vulnerable to exploitation by China’s government.” It gives me the question, what evidence is presented? What evidence has been verified? You see America has seen its OWN influencers hand over data (or make available) to Russia, after 8 years we FINALLY see action and more nations are following. As such I am weary of anything anti China appearing after the BS stage America did regarding Huawei and for that part we still haven’t seen clear evidence. A mere mention of ‘could’ and ‘possible’ were given, but no hard evidence. A mere case that was settled and 10 years old. Even as we are given “advocates of America’s powerful free speech rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, say upholding the divest-or-ban law would be a gift to authoritarian regimes everywhere.” I need to agree that these first amendment rights were never ready for the digital revolution we are seeing and we see that in relationship to the Russian paid influencers. I find it weird that they can call themselves ‘victims’ all whilst they got a million dollar deals. Influencers need to be addressed and cut short. If this is not done then you hand a victory to ByteDance and its TikTok. Then we see the accusation “Mr Wang also criticised lawmakers for being vague about the specific national security threats that they say TikTok poses”, really? So where were they (US intelligence) when social media influencers decided to invade national security for Russia. We have yet to see results from that and that is the setting stage for TikTok to be held accountable (if there is any accountability). We see too many anti-China rhetoric, all whilst America is merely trying to keep issues in America and still they cannot tax the minimum part of this, so what is it about? Another claim was seen in another BBC article. We are given “They fear the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over data about TikTok’s 170 million US users. TikTok insists it would not provide foreign user data to the Chinese government.” So how is this on ByteDance? As far as I can see it, Facebook already took care of that (via Cambridge Analytica), that is seen as we were given “Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on potentially over 87 million users, most of them in the USA” (source: the Guardian, NBC, CNET) oh, and that is not all. Politicians Ted Cruz and convicted politician Donald Trump were accused of using this tactic. From there we see the quote “It has not been proven, because the difficult thing about proving a situation like that is that you need to do a forensic analysis of the database”this gets us to the next session. What forensic analyses was used to prove the TikTok matter? It does not because as far as I can see, it is a revenue tactic using the accusation of data. So how often is a firm forced to sell on the accusation? In that case, what cases of forced sales exist for Microsoft?
That is one of the pillars we need to see and investigate. In March 2024 we got from the BBC “a similar test carried out by Citizen Lab concluded “in comparison to other popular social media platforms, TikTok collects similar types of data to track user behaviour”” does this not imply that similar settings need to exist to the other social media channels? America is a mere 325 million, Europe has over 742 people, the middle east 381 million people and Asia is near 5 billion people, America is a shoddy minority, but these settings are not tested against Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Whatever Elon Musk has and a few other players. This is as one-sided as it gets. And that is not even considering Russia and its poor poor influencer victims in all this. So how is that going? It frustrates me that Huawei had such scruffy treatment whilst NO evidence has ever been produced.
And in this a report that was given in 2023 where we see “Similarly, a report by the Georgia Institute of Technology last year stated: “The key fact here is that most other social media and mobile apps do the same things.”” So where is the banding of ties to these American social media settings because I do not believe that the NSA isn’t on that same page of collecting non-American data points. And then we get the largest issues “Although it irks privacy experts, most of us accept that handing over swathes of private data is the deal we make with social networks” it is the price of these free mobile networks. So what is this stage? It is fuelled by the item “Article seven of China’s National Intelligence Law states that all Chinese organisations and citizens should “support, assist and co-operate” with the country’s intelligence efforts. This sentence is often cited by people suspicious not just of TikTok, but all Chinese companies.” If people have an issue with that, that’s fair. However be warned that America let data go to Russia without so much as a threat for 14 years, in the end (2022) we get “Facebook owner Meta has agreed to pay $725m (£600m)” and as far as I know a mere £500,000 was the part for the UK, I think that America has a lot more issues than China. It had to overhaul its data policies at least a decade ago. So how many apps via Twitter, Apple apps, google apps (mostly games) and Facebook has been collecting data? This is seen with “Data was collected on at least 30 million users while only 270,000 people downloaded the app”, so where was the anguish there? I personally see this TokTok issue as a governmental money grab and a consolidation of data in America (away from China). If it becomes a side whether I want my data abused by America versus China is entirely up to the elections as I do not now, not ever trust Trump and I feel that China is the safer place for data and I know I am not alone in this. To be honest, I don’t want either to have it. Perhaps it is an option for Evroc to expand its governance from cloud to include social media data to be placed in Sweden (GDPR) or perhaps Saudi Arabia. It seems that bank violations are harshly dealt with there. If data transgressions are dealt with equally harshly it might be an option.
Just some food for thought, time for a sandwich for me, yummy. Enjoy your day this Monday, knowing it is almost Monday in Vancouver.

X to the power of sneaky
I was honestly a little surprised this morning when I saw the news pass by. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67137773) gives us ‘Twitter glitch allows CIA informant channel to be hijacked’. To be honest, I have no idea why they would take this road, but part of me gets it. Perhaps in the stream of all those messages, a few messages might never be noticed. The best way to hide a needly is to drop it in a haystack. Yet the article gives us “But Kevin McSheehan was able to redirect potential CIA contacts to his own Telegram channel” giving us a very different setting to the next course of a meal they cannot afford. So when we are given “At some point after 27 September, the CIA had added to its X profile page a link – https://t.me/securelycontactingcia – to its Telegram channel containing information about contacting the organisation on the dark net and through other secretive means”, most of us will overlook the very setting that we see here and it took me hours to trip over myself and take a walk on the previous street to reconsider this. So when we are given “a flaw in how X displays some links meant the full web address had been truncated to https://t.me/securelycont – an unused Telegram username” the danger becomes a lot more visible. And my first thought was that a civilian named McSheehan saw this and the NSA did not? How come the NSA missed this? I think that checking its own intelligence systems is a number one is stopping foreign powers to succeed there and that was either not done, or the failing is a lot bigger then just Twitter. So even as the article ends with “The CIA did not reply to a BBC News request for comment – but within an hour of the request, the mistake had been corrected” we should see the beginning not the end of something. So, it was a set of bungles that starts with the CIA IT department, that goes straight into the NSA servers, Defence Cyber command and optionally the FBI cyber routines as well. You see, the origin I grasp at is “Installation of your defences against enemy retaliation” and it is not new, It goes back to Julius Caesar around 52BC (yes, more then two millennia ago). If I remember it correctly he wrote about it in Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Make sure your defences are secure before you lash out is a more up to date setting and here American intelligence seemingly failed.
Now, we get it mistakes will be made, that happens. But for the IT department of several intelligence departments to miss it and for a civilian in Maine to pick it up is a bit drastic an error and that needs to be said. This is not some Common Cyber Sense setting, this is a simple mistake, one that any joker could make, I get that. My issue is that the larger collection of intelligence departments missed it too and now we have a new clambake.
Yes, the CIA can spin this however they want, but the quote “within an hour of the request, the mistake had been corrected” implies that they had not seen this and optionally have made marked targets of whomever has linked their allegiance to the CIA. That is not a good thing and it is a setting where (according to Sun Tzu) dead spies are created. Yet they are now no longer in service of America, but they are optionally in service of the enemies of the USA and I cannot recall a setting where that ever was a good thing. You see, there was a stage that resembles this. In 942 the Germans instigated Englandspiel. A setting where “the Abwehr (German military intelligence) from 1942 to 1944 during World War II. German forces captured Allied resistance agents operating in the Netherlands and used the agents’ codes to dupe the United Kingdom’s clandestine organisation, the Special Operations Executive (SOE), into continuing to infiltrate agents, weapons, and supplies into the Netherlands. The Germans captured nearly all the agents and weapons sent by the United Kingdom” For two years the Germans had the upper hand, for two years the SOE got the short end of that stick and this might not be the same, but there is a setting where this could end up being the same and I cannot see that being a good thing for anyone (except the enemies of America). Now, I will not speculate on the possible damage and I cannot speculate on the danger optional new informants face or the value of their intelligence. Yet at this point I think that America needs to take a hard look at the setting that they played debutante too. I get it, it is not clear water, with any intelligence operation it never is. Yet having a long conversation with the other cyber units is not the worst idea to have. You see, there is a chance someone copied the CIA idea and did EXACTLY the same thing somewhere else. As such how much danger is the intelligence apparatus in? Come to think of it, if Palantir systems monitor certain server actions, how did they miss it too? This is not an accusation, it is not up to Palantir to patrol the CIA, but these systems are used to monitor social media and no one picked up on this?
Just a thought to have on the middle of this week.
Leave a comment
Filed under IT, Military
Tagged as Abwehr, BBC, CIA, Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Common Cyber Sense, DoD, Englandspiel, FBI, Julius Caesar, Kevin McSheehan, Maine, NSA, Palantir, SOE, Special Operations Executive, Sun Tzu, Twitter