Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

NickDanger3di t1_j1a5u9b wrote

I don't use TikTok; so it seems to me like using tiktok for confidential communications was a rather stupid thing for a professional journalist to do. But maybe tiktok is somehow essential for them, and I'm just not in the loop?

214

skweetis__ t1_j1ap4ct wrote

They weren't spying on the reporter's communications, they were "improperly gaining access to their IP addresses and user data in an attempt to identify whether they had been in the same locales as ByteDance employees."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/12/22/tiktok-tracks-forbes-journalists-bytedance/?sh=daa93207da57

257

[deleted] t1_j1d63n1 wrote

I'm surprised they couldn't predict this would happen. It's TikTok. Their explicit purpose for existing is data gathering and tracking.

15

Political_Target t1_j1v4p5a wrote

Many of today's mass shooters are claiming to be "targeted individuals", or subjects of FBI/NSA surveillance.

Gavin Long, Baton Rouge gunman, claims he was targeted by government agents with advanced technology - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/gavin-long-baton-rouge-targeted-individuals.html

Aaron Alexis, Naval Yard gunman, had a "secret" security clearance and claimed he was being made to hear voices - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-shooting/u-s-navy-was-warned-that-washington-shooter-heard-voices-idUSBRE98F0DN20130917

Myron May, lawyer and library shooter, claimed government officials were targeting him using "directed energy weapons" - https://www.tallahassee.com/videos/news/local/2015/02/05/22950769/

If the government is in fact somehow responsible for the shooting rampages of these "targeted individuals", then what laws/ policies could be justifying this? Is this tied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978's electronic surveillance?

A quick look at attempted FISA lawsuits shows that particular "electronic surveillance" methods are so secret that almost any case will be dismissed due to the "state secrets privilege" meant to hide classified information such as the sources of information. Even the FISC, or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is held in a secure room that is shielded from electromagnetic frequencies.

Donald Trump has also claimed to be a victim of FISA abuses, along with key members of his campaign such as Carter Page, whom FBI agents lied repeatedly on surveillance warrants about in order to target. In fact, when Trump's' Mar-a-Lago estate was raided the FBI claimed they were seizing classified documents relating to "weapons of mass destruction" and "classified intelligence sources that would threaten national security if exposed".

Weapons of mass destruction means "devices that are capable of emitting radiation" (radio waves and microwaves are EM radiation) according to the definitions section of the FISA Act. And remember FISA's electronic surveillance and the state secrets privilege being used in those cases to protect the secret methods used for conducting the surveillance?

But that still leaves one major question. If the people responsible for these mass shootings are all under targeted government surveillance, how is it that they are able to conduct these attacks unimpeded?

1

Political_Target t1_j1efwca wrote

Many of today's mass shooters are claiming to be "targeted individuals", or subjects of FBI/NSA surveillance.

Gavin Long, Baton Rouge gunman, claims he was targeted by government agents with advanced technology - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/gavin-long-baton-rouge-targeted-individuals.html

Aaron Alexis, Naval Yard gunman, had a "secret" security clearance and claimed he was being made to hear voices - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-shooting/u-s-navy-was-warned-that-washington-shooter-heard-voices-idUSBRE98F0DN20130917

Myron May, lawyer and library shooter, claimed government officials were targeting him using "directed energy weapons" - https://www.tallahassee.com/videos/news/local/2015/02/05/22950769/

If the government is in fact somehow responsible for the shooting rampages of these "targeted individuals", then what laws/ policies could be justifying this? Is this tied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978's electronic surveillance?

A quick look at attempted FISA lawsuits shows that particular "electronic surveillance" methods are so secret that almost any case will be dismissed due to the "state secrets privilege" meant to hide classified information such as the sources of information. Even the FISC, or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is held in a secure room that is shielded from electromagnetic frequencies.

Donald Trump has also claimed to be a victim of FISA abuses, along with key members of his campaign such as Carter Page, whom FBI agents lied repeatedly on surveillance warrants about in order to target. In fact, when Trump's' Mar-a-Lago estate was raided the FBI claimed they were seizing classified documents relating to "weapons of mass destruction" and "classified intelligence sources that would threaten national security if exposed".

Weapons of mass destruction means "devices that are capable of emitting radiation" (radio waves and microwaves are EM radiation) according to the definitions section of the FISA Act. And remember FISA's electronic surveillance and the state secrets privilege being used in those cases to protect the secret methods used for conducting the surveillance?

But that still leaves one major question. If the people responsible for these mass shootings are all under targeted government surveillance, how is it that they are able to conduct these attacks unimpeded?

−8

FjorgVanDerPlorg t1_j1al2yj wrote

Most journos have a process, which usually involves telling potential whistleblowers to use an encrypted contact method.

But that doesn't stop people contacting them on unencrypted mediums like tiktok.

What tiktok would have been looking for would be a conversation like this one:

Whistleblower - "I have information on xyz"

Reporter - "Not safe to talk on over social media like this, contact me on [insert encrypted messaging app] and we can talk further"

Unless the reporter was an idiot, which is less likely but also possible.

48

rtgh t1_j1apvry wrote

It's worse, according to the Forbes article they used IP addresses and location data to track the journalists and cross-referenced them with their employees to find the whistleblower.

94

conitation t1_j1doszd wrote

They spy from china... USA pulls bs too... but at least the USA doesn't currently capture and imprison people for their beliefs.

2

RantoniFantoni t1_j1ak3yu wrote

The media is generally pretty brain dead and only working for their paycheck.

See US media not caring that US Gov just convicted a Twitter employee for being a spy for Saudi Arabia, meanwhile Saudi government is now one of the major owners of Twitter. Says everything you need to know about us. The people that helped to make 9/11 possible only has to spend enough money lobbying and buying PR and both the US gov and media will not care what you do.

The US gov literally accused the Saudi spy of doxing Saudi dissidents whom were promptly chopped up and then let Elon with MBS buy Twitter while freaking out about Tik Tok. We're the same country that classified portions of the 9/11 Commission's Report that detailed a Saudi intelligence operative helping Al Qaeda in San Diego. Al Qaeda even filmed them hanging out with him, which was uncovered when they raided the Hamburg cell, you can see parts of that video on Youtube.

EDIT: I like the Saudi downvotes.

1

fzvw t1_j1amw3z wrote

The media did cover it though. If you look up the story there are articles from all the major news outlets.

47

RantoniFantoni t1_j1aoatk wrote

It wasn't covered as the top news item and instead was buried under other news due to Saudi PR spending. Many US entities are cautious about writing about Gulf States because through a myriad of companies, they own a lot of US assets. Like hardly anyone knows the Miramax is owned by a Gulf State.

And the media didn't see the hypocrisy between US government prosecuting a Saudi spy and then weeks later let the Saudi's help Elon buy Twitter.

EDIT: Saudi shills are downvoting hard.

−13

Think_Current101 t1_j1aqixb wrote

Not sure this is so much brain dead as... billionaires own all of our major media corporations and they're pretty keen to support foreign investments in the gulf states and, until very recently, Russia.

Blaming this on journalist incompetence and not ownership literally defunding newsrooms and having complete editorial control is a bit off the mark.

22

RantoniFantoni t1_j1aqypp wrote

I dunno, no journalist bothered to check with Stanford whether Elon actually went there and nobody bothered to look up unsealed court documents from a lawsuit in 2007 in Marin county court where Elon admitted to lying about his credentials.

Until recently, 99% of media coverage of Elon for the last several decades has been glowing. Even though all it took was one person to contact Stanford to verify Elon's attendance and the fake narrative comes crashing down.

EDIT: Thanks Elon stans.

−14

mcs_987654321 t1_j1b6t4f wrote

On what analysis are you basing that 95% figure? Does it include print and tv? US markets only or other set of markets?

Because my personal impression - based on print only (mainly weeklies), US FRA and CA sources - was a solid mix of positive, neutral/bemused, and negative.

The US media environment is still a clusterfuck in the aggregate, but making random declarations like “didn’t cover X” or “only said Y” is no better than the garbage, fact free op eds pushed out in the daily papers.

13

RantoniFantoni t1_j1bs72h wrote

There no analysis and you cant define what is media and what isn't, or who's a journalist and no isn't. Everything is subjective.

Which is why they make a TV show Succession about the Australian white nationalist that runs the media in Australia, US, and the UK.

0

ZombieZookeeper t1_j1aiy9d wrote

Tik Tok: "your data is safe from unauthorized access."

188

RecycledMatrix t1_j1aqulx wrote

We're long overdue for a global GDPR framework. Implementing it seems impossible due to the financial and logistical incentives for corporations and government, but we've handled worse issues on a global stage.

167

Ma3vis t1_j1cjil1 wrote

> We're long overdue for a global GDPR framework

I mean how can you protect citizens rights to constitutional privacy without one? All these foreign spy agencies, government contractors and private corporations swaying elections and collecting meta data is a threat to democracy, or a moral hazard at the very least

27

Prophet_Tehenhauin t1_j1d0c8p wrote

With roe overturned do we have a constitutional right to privacy? Where is it?

10

Horkrux t1_j1djt2z wrote

r/USdefaultism

On a more serious note: fuck that ruling

5

apimpnamedmidnight t1_j1djn7c wrote

Could you explain to me how a right to privacy is a right to abortion? Does the right to privacy provide the rest of our rights to medical care?

0

Prophet_Tehenhauin t1_j1ecas0 wrote

There is no right to privacy in the constitution. It was created out of court rulings - the main one being Roe

6

sudoku7 t1_j1e9fdy wrote

You can read the Roe v Wade decision yourself if you want specifics, but the premise of it was that the government could not ban abortions due to the mother's right to privacy regarding her medical treatment.

5

N3UROTOXINsRevenge t1_j1dbmr5 wrote

Things need to be physically done to stop it. Voting and regulation doesn’t happen because the companies buy their power. We have to take it back.

1

lvlint67 t1_j1l4vbm wrote

The problem will always be jurisdiction.

1

LemonPepper-Lou t1_j1a3j1r wrote

There is zero privacy in the world if you use the internet.

26

NickDanger3di t1_j1a6qn5 wrote

I got my first PC in 1985. When I started using the internet, it was so different. Maybe we should change the name to AdverNet, or PropagandaNet, or something else more fitting for The World We Live In Today.

24

SignalGuava6 t1_j1adbp3 wrote

How else are you going to know what you absolutely NEED, if they don't collect all your data, run it through an algorithm and then bombard you with the 100th ad for that product?

5

GillStan t1_j1cd1e6 wrote

Article doesn't ever mention that Chinese companies are by law required to share all data with the government. Bytedance is a Chinese government front.

23

randomnighmare t1_j1bx2p8 wrote

Oh but whatabout.... TikTok is spyware plain and simple and they have to follow all CCP commands/orders but in America, Apple can tell the DoJ to f itself and refuse to unlock phones from shooters.

12

5of10 t1_j1c5cgf wrote

And that’s why I don’t use TikTok.

11

macgruff t1_j1e13vn wrote

Also, it is the current playground of the idiotic and vapid. Just like Insta, Vine (which TikTok basically “is”, just with newer features), Facebook, MySpace, etc etc.

1

Bryanb337 t1_j1etz2b wrote

Yeah, reddit definitely doesn't have the idiotic and vapid though.

3

macgruff t1_j1g0043 wrote

Well, we’ve got the idgits… it’s not really a “look at me” platform though, as everyone else would ridicule 🤪

2

_FixingGood_ t1_j1cbka5 wrote

Chek the Solid project. Keeping your information in one place instead of spreading it everywhere.

From the guy that made HTML. Seing how well that went, I'm excited to see where this goes.

8

xeq937 t1_j1dywsf wrote

Chinese going through everyone's info? Say it ain't so!

4

micro012 t1_j1akbfd wrote

sorry i fucked your wife, i was looking for my ps5 (that i have might or might not have bought yet).

−2

Mental_Attitude_2952 t1_j1bamxi wrote

Definitely buy one if you havent. It's worth it for last of us remake alone.... but... and this is a huge but, make sure you keep that sob dust free or it will crash out hard. It's the biggest dust magnet I have ever owned. I was shocked at the 6 month accumulation and I'm pretty nutty about keeping electronics clean

−4

LegacyAngel t1_j1cpl45 wrote

Where did you check for dust and how did you clean it?

−2

disneylegend t1_j1cggpj wrote

Journalists confirm that journalists improperly accessed journalists’ user data in hunt for leaks.

−8