TikTok Is a Threat to National Security, Says FCC's Carr

Summary

In a detailed conversation, a commissioner outlines concerns about TikTok's national security threat, citing instances where US user data was reportedly accessed by Beijing, despite assurances of data protection. The discussion covers TikTok's alleged failure to segregate US data effectively through Project Texas, and touches on broader issues like free speech, legislative action against TikTok, and the potential impacts of divestment. The commissioner argues that the core issue is TikTok's conduct under CCP influence, rather than content censorship, emphasizing the need for robust policy responses to safeguard national security while maintaining competitive digital spaces.

Takeaways

• 📈 TikTok has been labeled a national security threat due to its alleged mishandling of U.S. user data, including keystrokes, biometrics, and browsing history.
• 🛡️ Despite claims of U.S. user data being safeguarded, reports suggest that Beijing personnel still access sensitive information, contradicting the promise of data protection.
• 📝 Project Texas, an initiative to wall off U.S. user data from Beijing access, has been criticized as ineffective, likened to being as 'secure as a sieve'.
• 📚 Bipartisan concern exists in Capitol Hill, with discussions around free speech and the constitutionality of regulating TikTok based on its conduct rather than content.
• 🔨 The proposed legislation focuses on divestment rather than an outright ban, aiming to secure TikTok for American use without the national security risks.
• 📲 Former President Trump's ambivalence towards TikTok contrasts with his administration's efforts to address the influence of the CCP and big tech's conduct.
• 📰 The slow legislative response to TikTok's issues reflects broader challenges in dealing with tech threats and contrasts with China's straightforward approach to banning U.S. tech companies.
• 💾 Bipartisan support in the Senate for addressing TikTok's national security concerns suggests promising prospects for legislative action.
• 📖 The debate around TikTok involves distinguishing between content issues and conduct issues, with the focus on the latter as evidence of CCP control.
• 🔒 The analogy of using a pen for writing versus illegal activities illustrates the government's stance on differentiating between free speech and harmful conduct.

Q & A

Why does the Commissioner consider TikTok a clear and present danger to national security?

The Commissioner considers TikTok a clear and present danger to national security due to its track record of misleading claims about U.S. user data not existing in China, leaked materials showing that such data is accessible in China, and instances of the CCP using data to surveil Americans. Additionally, efforts like Project Texas intended to secure data have been ineffective.

What was the significance of the blockbuster report released in 2022 regarding TikTok?

The blockbuster report released in 2022 was significant because it exposed that contrary to previous assurances, U.S. user data on TikTok was accessible inside China, including keystroke patterns, biometrics, search history, and location data, contradicting TikTok's claims that U.S. user data was not stored or accessible in China.

What is Project Texas, and why has it been criticized?

Project Texas is an initiative by TikTok to segregate U.S. user data and protect it from being accessed by personnel in Beijing, aiming to enhance data security. It has been criticized because, despite its intentions, reports emerged that Beijing personnel still accessed sensitive U.S. user data, rendering the project ineffective.

How did the Commissioner respond to concerns about free speech related to the regulation of TikTok?

The Commissioner argued that the regulation of TikTok does not trigger First Amendment concerns because it is based on conduct (due to national security threats) rather than the content of speech. He emphasized that the legislation is conduct-based, narrowly tailored, and allows Americans to continue using TikTok in a more secure manner.

What is the stance of the Biden administration on using TikTok, considering the national security risks?

The Biden administration acknowledges the national security risks posed by TikTok but sees value in its ability to reach younger audiences. The passage of a bill requiring divestment of TikTok aims to mitigate these risks, allowing campaigns, including Biden's, to use TikTok securely.

What are former President Trump's views on TikTok and the proposed bill?

Former President Trump has had mixed views on TikTok, recognizing both its potential benefits and drawbacks. While he initiated actions against TikTok during his tenure, his recent comments suggest ambiguity. However, the current bill's focus on divestment rather than an outright ban could align with addressing his concerns about maintaining competition in the tech industry.

How does the Commissioner differentiate between content and conduct in the context of TikTok's operation?

The Commissioner differentiates by stating that concerns are not about the content generated or shared on TikTok but about the conduct, particularly the control and misuse of data by the CCP. He argues that the way TikTok's algorithm operates, possibly influenced by CCP interests, is a matter of conduct, not content censorship.

Why has there been slow progress in addressing national security concerns related to TikTok?

Progress has been slow due to the complex nature of the issue, Bytedance's lobbying efforts, and legislative challenges in Congress. Unlike China's straightforward approach to banning U.S. tech companies, the U.S. system requires more considered, slower-moving processes to address such concerns while balancing rights and security.

What is the anticipated outcome of the bill concerning TikTok in the Senate?

The Commissioner is optimistic about the bill's prospects in the Senate, noting bipartisan concern over TikTok's national security threat, including previous expressions of concern from leaders like Senator Schumer. The bill's focus on divestment rather than a ban is seen as a balanced approach to addressing the issue.

How does the concept of divestment work in the context of TikTok's regulation?

Divestment involves requiring TikTok to be sold to a company not tied to countries of concern, like China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. This approach aims to eliminate national security threats while maintaining TikTok's presence in the market as a counterweight to other big tech companies, without imposing a complete ban.

Outlines

00:00

🔒 National Security Concerns Surrounding TikTok

The dialogue opens with concerns about TikTok being labeled a national security threat due to its handling of U.S. user data and its ties to the Chinese government. Concrete examples provided include leaked reports showing U.S. data access by Beijing, attempts to surveil Americans, and ineffective data protection measures like Project Texas. The discussion also touches on political perspectives on free speech, emphasizing that the issue with TikTok is not about the content of speech but about conduct related to national security. The commissioner suggests that the platform's divestment could mitigate security risks while allowing Americans to continue using the app, potentially making it safer for campaigns like President Biden's to use TikTok for outreach.

05:02

🔄 The Political and Legislative Response to TikTok

This section discusses the varied political stances towards TikTok, from former President Trump's ambivalent position to the current legislative efforts aiming not to ban TikTok but to require its divestment from Chinese ownership to eliminate national security threats. It highlights the slow legislative process in addressing tech-related national security concerns compared to China's more straightforward approach. The commissioner expresses optimism about the bill's prospects in both the House and the Senate, emphasizing that concerns over TikTok are based on conduct rather than content, and how U.S. legislation is carefully tailored to address security threats without infringing on free speech rights.

Keywords

💡TikTok

TikTok, a popular social media platform, is the focal point of the video's discussion, mainly regarding its alleged national security threats to the US. The platform, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, is accused of potentially mishandling US user data by allowing access to it from China. The conversation delves into various reports and incidents that suggest TikTok's user data practices and its ties to the Chinese government could pose a security risk.

💡National Security

National security refers to the protection of a country's citizens, economy, and institutions from threats. In the context of this video, TikTok is portrayed as a 'clear and present danger' to US national security, with allegations that the platform could be used by the Chinese government for espionage, surveillance, and influencing operations against the United States.

💡Project Texas

Project Texas is mentioned as TikTok's initiative to 'wall off' US user data from access by personnel in Beijing, aiming to alleviate security concerns. However, the discussion highlights skepticism about its effectiveness, suggesting that despite these efforts, data might still be accessible by Chinese authorities, undermining the project's security assurances.

💡CCP (Chinese Communist Party)

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is frequently cited in the conversation as having potential access to TikTok's data, raising fears of surveillance and misuse. The CCP's involvement with TikTok, through ByteDance's leadership and data access, is a core concern for US national security, illustrating the geopolitical tension between the US and China.

💡Data Privacy

Data privacy concerns are central to the conversation, focusing on how TikTok's handling of user data, including keystrokes, biometrics, and browsing history, could compromise the privacy and security of US citizens. These concerns are exacerbated by reports of this data being accessible within China.

💡Surveillance

Surveillance, particularly by the CCP using TikTok's data, is highlighted as a significant issue. The video mentions instances where data on Americans, especially journalists critical of TikTok, was allegedly used to surveil them, underlining the potential for misuse of data collected by the platform.

💡Divestment

Divestment is discussed as a proposed solution to TikTok's national security risks, suggesting that ByteDance could sell TikTok to a company not tied to adversaries like China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. This approach aims to mitigate security concerns while keeping the app available in the US market.

💡Free Speech

Free speech is brought up in the context of potential actions against TikTok, with concerns about how regulation might affect expression. The video clarifies that the measures being considered are targeted at conduct (i.e., the handling of data and ties to the CCP) rather than the content of speech, thus aiming to avoid First Amendment concerns.

💡Legislation

Legislation refers to the proposed laws discussed in the video aimed at addressing the national security concerns associated with TikTok. This includes measures for divestment and the regulation of how US user data is managed, illustrating the government's approach to mitigating these risks through legal means.

💡Algorithm

The algorithm of TikTok is mentioned as a concern not for its content but for how it operates in a manner that could suggest CCP influence or control. This distinction emphasizes the issue is not with the videos themselves but the potential underlying conduct, such as data handling and censorship, influenced by the CCP.

Highlights

Commissioner calls TikTok a clear and present danger to national security.

Leaked materials reveal US user data is accessible in China, including keystroke patterns, biometrics, and location.

The CCP uses TikTok data to surveil Americans and journalists critical of the platform.

Despite promises, Beijing personnel still access sensitive US user data.

Bytedance, TikTok's parent company, has a CCP cell embedded in its leadership.

Project Texas' failure to secure user data from Beijing's access.

The debate on TikTok involves complex issues of free speech and national security.

Proposed divestment of TikTok aims to remove national security threats without banning the app.

Potential impact of TikTok divestment on political campaigns and their reach to the youth.

Former President Trump's mixed signals on TikTok's national security threat.

The bill targets TikTok's conduct, not content, aligning with First Amendment concerns.

The ongoing challenge of addressing national security concerns with TikTok in the legislative process.

The unique difficulty of regulating technology and national security in a democratic system compared to China's approach.

The potential for TikTok's divestment to maintain market competition while addressing security concerns.

The distinction between content and conduct in government regulation of platforms like TikTok.

Transcripts

Commissioner, we're looking forward to this conversation.

I've got your comments in front of me on Tick Tock.

You've called it before a clear and present danger to national security.

I'm sure a tick tock would disagree with that characterization as well.

Can you give us some concrete examples of why you think that's the case?

Yeah, the track record where Tick tock, malign conduct is very clear at this

point. For years they told us lawmakers, don't

worry US user data isn't even existing inside China.

And then a blockbuster report came out in 2022 that showed no one back.

Everything is seen inside of China based on leaked materials that keystroke

patterns, biometrics, search and browsing history, location.

Then second of all, what the CCP are doing with that data is very nefarious.

They use access that data personnel in Beijing did to surveil the locations of

specific Americans, journalists that were writing negative stories about tick

tock. Third tick tock said, okay, you caught

us red handed. We're going to wall off us user data.

But lo and behold, the Wall Street Journal report came out and found that

personnel in Beijing are still getting access to that data sensitive U.S.

user data after agreeing to wall it off. And the record goes on from there,

including Tiktok's parent Bytedance having a CCP sale embedded in its

leadership. So this is about the malign conduct that

an entity that is beholden to the CCP has been engaged in.

When you talk about walling off that data, you're talking about Project Texas

has, it has not worked at all. No, not at all.

So one of the leaked materials had TikTok trust and safety officials

themselves saying that it remains to be seen whether product and engineering,

meaning Beijing can still get access to U.S.

user data after mitigations like Project Texas are put in place.

Second of all, that walling off of data that we just talked about was part of

Project Texas. And again, Beijing still got access to

it. And even Tiktok's CEO has said Project

Texas will keep data from going to Beijing except when we allow it pursuant

to what they claim are new controls. So Project Texas is about as secure as a

sieve at the end of the day, in a day of interesting and odd political

bedfellows, what we saw yesterday in Capitol Hill is a lot of individuals

come out and talk about free speech on the progressive left and the right.

Ron Paul saying he's going to block anything that's contrary to the

Constitution. Do you agree?

Is there a free speech issue at play here?

Yeah, look, Rand Paul's a great on these liberty issues.

This particular bill does not trigger a First Amendment concern for one main

reason the Supreme Court is drawing a clear line between regulations based on

content of speech on the one hand, and regulation of conduct on the other.

And this plainly is a conduct law, meaning we're acting because of a

demonstrated malign national security threat of TikTok, not because of the

content of anybody's speech. And the bill is narrowly tailored, which

is key for First Amendment analysis, because it simply requires divestment,

meaning the millions of Americans that love TikTok.

I'm not one of them, but they can continue to use the application, but

just in a more secure way. So because of the conduct at issue here,

the Constitution does not compel us to require a national security threat to

continue to persist. Well, there's one politician in D.C.

who certainly likes Tik Tok, and that's President Biden in the sense of his

campaign. They feel like they're able to reach the

youth by using Tik Tok. So if Tik Tok is divested, there's a

sale. Would that mean that the Biden campaign

can continue using it? But do you think it will be safer?

Yeah, that's right. You know, a lot of people raised that

concern about the Biden administration being on TikTok.

But by administration officials have been very clear that there's a national

security threat here. That's why passed this bill actually

squares the circle, because then the campaign or anybody's campaign could

continue or start to be on TikTok. But without that serious national

security risk that's present today. Commissioner, given the fact we've heard

that from President Biden, I'm curious about your comments from the former

President Trump, who seems to be, I don't know, less clear about what he

thinks of this bill, saying, you know, that there's a lot of good there's a lot

of bad with Tik Tok talking about how it increases the prevalence of media.

What do you make of his comments? I think, first of all, President Trump,

you know, fundamentally reshaped Washington, D.C.

to understand the serious threat posed by the CCP.

He's also raised concerns, as I have with the conduct of big tech companies

that are based right here in Silicon Valley.

And those are real concerns. He pushed for Section 230 reform, which

I supported and had hoped we would have gotten across the finish line at the FCC

by now, and we had it. But TikTok presents obviously sort of a

threat that's fundamentally different than us big tech companies for all of my

concerns with their conduct. And I have many once we deal with the

national security threat from tick tock, when you break that tie back to the CCP,

then we should move very quickly. As President Trump has outlined on

Section 230 reform and in my view, a permanent anti-discrimination obligation

that would apply across the board. Until you break that link to the CCP.

A lot of other reforms just aren't going to work out.

But it does feel like he flip flopped on this in the sense that he wanted to ban

it under his administration. It then got held up in court and now

he's saying he's really not so sure about it.

Do you think we could see a different if he was to become president of United

States? A different view on tick tock because of

his concerns of how big meta is. Well, again, I think the reason why this

bill is such a smart approach is because it's not a ban bill.

It's a divestment. And so you would have tick tock, go to a

different doesn't need to be a U.S. company can be any company that's not

tied to China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.

So you could continue to have tic tac in the marketplace as a counterweight to

Facebook, as a counterweight to others. But it can be there in a way that

doesn't present the national security threat.

So it keeps that competition high. Commissioner, we seem to be ill equipped

to deal with these issues. It's been four years, about four years

since we've been talking about this, and hardly anything has happened just in

terms of actually passing proper policy to do something about these national

security concerns. I think back to China, it's easy, it's

straightforward. She comes out and says no, and then

that's it. It's banned.

It's open Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, no access.

Why are we so ill equipped in the West to deal with these threats?

And how do we go about changing that? Yeah, we certainly have a very different

system, obviously, than they do in China.

And some people raise concerns about will China engage in some sort of

reciprocal action based on that. I remind people Facebook and other US

technology companies are already banned in China.

So, yes, we move more slowly. We move in a much more considered way.

And obviously, don't underestimate the fact that, you know, Bytedance has put

every single amount of lobbyist possible to slow roll this.

And people look at 118th Congress and they say, you know, they have a hard

time getting things done as a general matter.

But this is one where 118 and Speaker Johnson can land a significant

legislative win, not just on a tough issue, but as you know, on a technology

issue where it's sometimes difficult for Congress to act.

And that's why the Commerce Committee with Chair Rogers holding that

blockbuster hearing last March, I think that really set things in motion.

Do people wish it would have gone faster?

Sure, undoubtedly. But arriving here today where there's a

vote in the House is a significant moment, a significant moment in the

House. But what happens next in the Senate,

Commissioner? Yeah, pretty good about the odds in the

Senate as well. If you look back, actually, people sort

of have forgotten this. But Senator Schumer joined in a letter

with Senator Cotton back in 2019, raising serious concerns about Tiktok's

national security threat. So this is an issue that is a long

standing issue for Senator Schumer over there and many, many Republicans as

well. So a lot of the focus has been in the

House, obviously, up to now. It'll now shift to the Senate, but I

think the odds are very good there as well.

And I'm looking forward, hopefully to the bill passing today in the House and

then things moving over there. Commissioner, I want to finish on

contact first is content. You talked about this being a conduct

issue. Do you believe there is a content issue

in any way, shape or form as well? No, not at all.

I mean, look, sometimes we focus on the way the algorithm with TikTok performs

and people are focused on that, how it just shows content that is drastically

different than any other social media content that happens to align with the

CCP. Again, it's not that content.

That's the concern for me is that that content shows such a drastically

different operation of the algorithm that it goes fundamentally to conduct

into CCP controls when we talk about that.

Again, it's just further evidence of CCP control.

It's not about the government acting based on content.

Again, I'll give you one less analogy. Someone can take a pen and they can

write the most salacious anti-American propaganda they want.

There's nothing rightfully the government can do, but if you take that

pen and you use it to pick a lock and break into a building, well, that's

illegal conduct. We can take the pen and it's no defense

for you to say that you were using it to write previously.