Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks United States Technology

Senate Passes Legislation To Ban TikTok From US Government Devices (cnn.com) 50

The Senate has passed legislation to ban TikTok from US government devices, in a move designed to limit perceived information-security risks stemming from the social media app. From a report: The vote by unanimous consent approved the No TikTok on Government Devices Act, a bill authored by Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. The move marks lawmakers' latest step against the short-form video app that has become popular with over a billion users worldwide. US officials fear that TikTok's user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government due to that country's influence over TikTok's parent, ByteDance.

A companion bill was introduced in the House last year by Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck. It has yet to be approved by members of the House Oversight Committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday it isn't yet clear whether the chamber will take up the TikTok bill in light of its Senate passage, saying lawmakers were consulting with White House officials on its language.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Passes Legislation To Ban TikTok From US Government Devices

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday December 15, 2022 @12:23PM (#63133110) Homepage Journal

    Why are congresscreeps even allowed to install any app they want on phones they use for official business? Why is that not considered a security risk?

    • Why are congresscreeps even allowed to install any app they want on phones they use for official business? Why is that not considered a security risk?

      You're talking about the same group of highly educated humans who stare back like a deer when asked about blatant insider trading.

      We can't even get them to not be felons. What IT nerd you going to get to tell them what they can't do on their Precious? Bill Gates?

    • There are levels of security where that already isnâ(TM)t allowed. If youâ(TM)re on a âoesecureâ network in the military, is different than the âoephone from workâ you get as a senators aide.

      I know many in government on a smaller scale are aware of the risk and have a policy against their direct employees using things like TikTok, this just makes it official for all so there is no excuse when China uses the data TikTok collects to blackmail them.

      It also extends to all federal e

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. These people think they understand how the world works in all its aspects. At the same time, basically all of them are completely incompetent with regards to IT security. And they are powerful. You would probably need to put an aggressive 4 star with special powers in charge of IT Security to make them do anything. I have observed a similar effect in large hospitals, where all the MDs think they are modern, educated and of course understand IT security and IT security r

      • At the same time, basically all of them are completely incompetent with regards to IT security. And they are powerful.

        It's not people's job to be competent in IT security. That's why IT experts exist. The question isn't whether congresscritters are intelligent, the question is why are their devices not locked down by corporate IT. This isn't a failing of politicians, this is incompetence from the side of people who should know better.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          No, this isn't incompetence of politicians, it incompetence of authorities. Not always in the same area. Most authorities have areas in which they are quite competent, which is how they became authorities.

          Politicians are one particular subspecies of authority. They are competent at a combination of striking-deals and manipulating people. But other authorities have the same problem. It's notorious that upper management refuses to allow their devices to be secured. Not ALL members of upper management, b

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Exactly. I had one case of an audit-customer, where the C-levels did not need to use 2FA when traveling and logging into the company network abroad, but everybody else had to. Of course I put a stop to that nonsense. One of the reasons internal audit is independent and reports to external audit directly (and they report to the regulator).

        • ...and if the device is not personal, but provided by the employer, the rules of the employer IT must be followed
          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            ...and if the device is not personal, but provided by the employer, the rules of the employer IT must be followed

            Unless you think you are more important than any rules....

    • Well, now congressmen will have to use their own devices to watch videos of schoolgirls [shudder].
    • Mobile phones aren't work devices (and does not access network: security risks solved)
      * in my last jobs, there were a exclusive wireless connection to mobiles access internet, and never the local network, as expected)
    • Congresspeople need TikTok to reach their constituents with engaging 30-second policy highlights. A short dance about fiscal policy, or some quick ASMR about funding for foreign nations. You know, that sort of thing.
  • by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Thursday December 15, 2022 @12:24PM (#63133112) Journal

    I'm a bit surprised that it isn't already standard practice for government devices to be enrolled in MDM (mobile device management) with highly-restricted app installation policies applied.

    These aren't personal phones, they are a tool for the job, like a hammer or a wrench.

    These tools likely don't need a plethora of apps that are likely being installed -- Tiktok just seems to be the scapegoat of the moment.

    • Why do they have phones with access to the App store?

      Tiktok just seems to be the scapegoat of the moment.

      An anti-China stance is good politics right now.

      Besides, you've always been at war with Eastasia.

    • by Scoth ( 879800 ) on Thursday December 15, 2022 @12:34PM (#63133136)

      I was surprised they find out they apparently don't have this set up. I work for a large financial company involved in certain rapid tax filing software and fast book sort of things and both our company phones and Work Profile on personal devices are incredibly locked down. There's an internal "app store" that has a handful of approved work apps you can install, you can't sideload anything, and on Work/Personal profile devices you can't even share things from the Work profile elsewhere. It's insane that Congresscritters' devices aren't set up the same way. It's far from perfect security of course but it goes a long way to keeping someone who can barely handle email from installing some kind of malware or screwing up permissions.

      • by Arethan ( 223197 )

        Yes, that's exactly my sentiment. In the world of technology, our elected congress-critters are (at best) young children. They have no self-control, always seeking the short path to dopamine. If we don't give these children the strictest app policies, they'll install just about any random app they read about in the news for the lols, and likely then post some trash video about it on twitter hoping for 'engagement'.

        Meanwhile, some adversarial state actors have extracted their phone contact list and call hist

    • I'm a bit surprised that it isn't already standard practice for government devices to be enrolled in MDM (mobile device management) with highly-restricted app installation policies applied.

      I believe it was proposed at one point, but then the chairwoman of the committee said it all with an email sent directly from @clintonserver.com regarding personal use, sponsored by BleachBit.

    • #1 It is standard practice for government devices to be managed by the issuing organization. However, Congress controls the budget for the organizations that run federal government IT. If they don't like what you are doing to their devices they cut your budget.

      #2 If you restrict elected officials or cabinet appointees (people that are difficult to fire for simple policy violations) from doing whatever it is that they want to do they may just work around you. Like set up their own email servers and buy the

    • The law reaches personal devices?
  • I am no fan of commies, but isn't this unconstitutional .. specifically doesn't it violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 "No bill of attainder shall be passed"

    • by Osgeld ( 1900440 ) on Thursday December 15, 2022 @01:21PM (#63133234)

      its a government issued device the government owns it they can have or not have whatever they want on it, or are you really just that daft

    • Huh? How do you get that? It's not declaring anyone or any group guilty of anything. It's about stopping a blatant and obvious security threat. No one is going to jail over it.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      No. In fact it's weaker than it should be. If they want to consider Tiktok a risk they should make it illegal to carry a device with Tiktok installed onto government land. Like military bases, but also like federal buildings. (How they'd detect a violation is an interesting question. But if Tiktok sends a revealing signal in response to an incoming signal it should be sufficiently doable.)

  • Now ban it nationwide from all devices/app stores, then we can talk. None of these chinese controlled companies should have any foothold in the US.
  • by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Thursday December 15, 2022 @01:51PM (#63133328)
    Why any adult would put TikTok or what ever on their phone? But these are individuals who work for the government. So not the sharpest tacks in the box.
  • Just work, instead.
  • US politics are funny ;p
  • Jokes on you, TikTok is a service, not an app. Head over to tiktok.com on your mobile browser and login while you on the toilet.
  • Meaningless legislation is the only things they can pass.

  • It's a risk for absolutely everyone. Airhead teen discusses his/her military Dad's deployment on a ship or to a base with some other airhead teen, and presto, the CCP knows where her Dad is, and with all the other chatter all over the damned thing, probably the entire unit's composition and whereabouts. Apps that report out to another country should be illegal, period.

    Of course, if it's like Hillary spreading classified information all over the world by discussing it on her unclassified private email se

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...