- cross-posted to:
- technology
- cross-posted to:
- technology
About 59% of Americans say TikTok a threat to the national security of the United States, according to a new survey of U.S. adults.
About 59% of Americans say TikTok a threat to the national security of the United States, according to a new survey of U.S. adults.
Banning TikTok is not a deterrent. Having a big navy is a deterrent.
Information dominance is our single greatest advantage in the West and has been since WWII. Code breakers did more to win in Europe than any bombing campaign alone and the Battle of Midway would not have been won otherwise. It is why Ukraine is doing so well to this day. Numbers only go so far.
TikTok does not grant information dominance unless our government is dumb enough to pull a Russia and allow deployed soldiers in combat zones to post on TikTok, which I sincerely doubt.
Always on location enables machine learning models to be developed on movement. This applies to troop movements, critical civilian infrastructure, and maximizing civil disruption. Always on audio enables the fully automated development of models that sound just like you enabling fake orders to be developed, propaganda, and misinformation at an individual user level. Always on video enables the mapping of military bases and threat profiling. Access to biometric data enables readiness assessments. Combinations of all of the above enable the development of combined information warfare which has not been possible yet.
All of this has literally already been done, just not at scale yet but they are actively working on it. This is real and why we are working to deter it. It is no longer about individual networks anymore.
If it applies to troop movements, our military failed at basic infosec. If it applies to civilian movements outside of wartime, it’s useless information, since the US is very easy to map logistically.
All of this has been done, you’re right - in like 1812.
The only thing I can do at this point is to encourage you to trust that warfare has indeed changed in the last 200 years and that we (somewhat) know what we are doing at a strategic level.
I’m quite aware of how warfare has changed, as is clearly evident from my posting so far.
You’ve yet to articulate an actual threat TikTok’s data harvesting has on the civilian populace. We agree about military/government security protocols.
One of the clearest takeaways from the Ukraine conflict is how little the Russian MOD will regard civilian protections. We’ve also seen the same thing with the PLA. War is an extension of politics. If they can use tools to disrupt civilian life and logistics, they will if it means delaying a military response on the Taiwanese island by weeks. That is their goal. Using information warfare also makes it more likely that they can disrupt us enough without attacking our military. This makes an attack on Taiwan more likely, not less.
In terms of an actual threat, I detailed several ways that they can use the data to develop models of behavior and highly individualize it. It is combining the models and access with traditional and recently developed propaganda techniques that effects can be coordinated. Think of it more like traditional cyber warfare but much more effective and about combining individual actions. One person flushing a toilet does not do much but a whole town at the same time can create an issue.
Additionally, civilians are allowed on military bases. We are not in the habit of banning phone software at gate entries. There’s no way to keep it out realistically speaking. Children have phones at home and largely follow their parents. With that level of data access and a 40+% marketshare, there is no escaping a CCP sensor at any given point now when you go out in public. It really does not take that much data to develop an information model and the more data we give them, the more accurate they will be.
That is just the short-term uses of the data. China now has data to use against future people with security clearances, politicians, and industry leadership that will aid their intelligence services for generations.
You’re retreading ground weve covered but keep mentioning an “information model” bogeyman that you have not yet clarified as a threat.
Our difference of opinion is due to me not seeing that as a credible threat. Can you address that specifically?