Trump will allow TikTok sale to go through, as long as the US gets a piece of the action

[essentialsaltes]

President Donald Trump said he would allow an American company to acquire the short-form video app — with a catch.

Trump on Monday set September 15 as the deadline for TikTok to find a US buyer, failing which he said he will shut down the app in the country. In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury.

"Whether it's Microsoft or somebody else, or if it's the Chinese — what the price is, the United States could — should get a very large percentage of that price. Because we're making it possible," he said.

The President's requirement that some of the money from the deal go to the US Treasury doesn't have a basis in antitrust law, according to Gene Kimmelman, a former chief counsel for the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and currently a senior adviser to the policy group Public Knowledge.

"This is quite unusual, this is out of the norm," Kimmelman said. "It's actually quite hard to understand what the president is actually talking about here. ... It's not unheard of for transactions to have broader geopolitical implications between countries, but it's quite remarkable to think about some kind of money being on the table in connection with a transaction."


Alternative title: US president solicits money in exchange for official action

 

[Arcangl86]

Like I can't see how he would benefit personally, but otherwise I would say he straight up asked for a bribe.

 

[Davist]

So I understand that the app is a security risk, that doesn't seem to be a partisan issue. Biden banned the app on his staff's work and personal phones, citing the app has full access to your clipboard on IOS, which could possibly leak login details to the Chinese government.

What I don't understand is why Trump isn't questioning or addressing these dangerous privacy vulnerabilities. He seems only concerned about the ownership of the app, seemingly giving the impression that practices like this are fine, as long as your company isn't Chinese owned. That boggles my mind. Surely you would want companies to refrain from doing stuff like this, even if they are US-owned? A security risk is a security risk, right?

Really not a fan of Tick Tock, but I really don't think banning this specific app is the right move. The US should ban the practices which allow this vulnerability instead, and if Tick Tock does not comply, then ban it. The government's priority should be the safety of its citizens, but instead, Trump's really making it clear his priority is money.

 

[royal priest]

So I understand that the app is a security risk, that doesn't seem to be a partisan issue. Biden banned the app on his staff's work and personal phones, citing the app has full access to your clipboard on IOS, which could possibly leak login details to the Chinese government.

What I don't understand is why Trump isn't questioning or addressing these dangerous privacy vulnerabilities. He seems only concerned about the ownership of the app, seemingly giving the impression that practices like this are fine, as long as your company isn't Chinese owned. That boggles my mind. Surely you would want companies to refrain from doing stuff like this, even if they are US-owned? A security risk is a security risk, right?

Really not a fan of Tick Tock, but I really don't think banning this specific app is the right move. The US should ban the practices which allow this vulnerability instead, and if Tick Tock does not comply, then ban it. The government's priority should be the safety of its citizens, but instead, Trump's really making it clear his priority is money.

People have business based on this app. The Fed is concerned to preserve these user's ability to profit in this way while keeping China's nose out of it.

 

[Davist]

People have business based on this app. The Fed is concerned to preserve these user's ability to profit in this way while keeping China's nose out of it.

They could do that just as easily by banning the security vulnerabilities. That way, Ticktock's company would either have to fix the issue or sell, and then the new owner would fix the issue. Trump's solution does not fix the problem, only transfers the problem to another entity which retains the freedom to misuse the data.

 

[FireDragon76]

President Donald Trump said he would allow an American company to acquire the short-form video app — with a catch.

Trump on Monday set September 15 as the deadline for TikTok to find a US buyer, failing which he said he will shut down the app in the country. In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury.

"Whether it's Microsoft or somebody else, or if it's the Chinese — what the price is, the United States could — should get a very large percentage of that price. Because we're making it possible," he said.

The President's requirement that some of the money from the deal go to the US Treasury doesn't have a basis in antitrust law, according to Gene Kimmelman, a former chief counsel for the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and currently a senior adviser to the policy group Public Knowledge.

"This is quite unusual, this is out of the norm," Kimmelman said. "It's actually quite hard to understand what the president is actually talking about here. ... It's not unheard of for transactions to have broader geopolitical implications between countries, but it's quite remarkable to think about some kind of money being on the table in connection with a transaction."


Alternative title: US president solicits money in exchange for official action

This is lunacy.

I guess Republicans can check in their "free market champions" card once and for all, if it means that corporations now have to give bribes to public officials.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Well that just seems like straight up extortion to me but I’m no lawyer so what do I know.

 

[camille70]

Another Quid Pro Quo. Who would have "thunk" it?

 

[Goonie]

Is Francis Ford Coppola available to direct Godfather Part IV?

 

[cow451]

President Donald Trump said he would allow an American company to acquire the short-form video app — with a catch.

Trump on Monday set September 15 as the deadline for TikTok to find a US buyer, failing which he said he will shut down the app in the country. In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury.

"Whether it's Microsoft or somebody else, or if it's the Chinese — what the price is, the United States could — should get a very large percentage of that price. Because we're making it possible," he said.

The President's requirement that some of the money from the deal go to the US Treasury doesn't have a basis in antitrust law, according to Gene Kimmelman, a former chief counsel for the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and currently a senior adviser to the policy group Public Knowledge.

"This is quite unusual, this is out of the norm," Kimmelman said. "It's actually quite hard to understand what the president is actually talking about here. ... It's not unheard of for transactions to have broader geopolitical implications between countries, but it's quite remarkable to think about some kind of money being on the table in connection with a transaction."


Alternative title: US president solicits money in exchange for official action

First, I need a favor....

 

[cow451]

Coming in 2021:

The Donfather

 

[Nithavela]

Like I can't see how he would benefit personally, but otherwise I would say he straight up asked for a bribe.

Might be force of habit.

 

[Nithavela]

So I understand that the app is a security risk, that doesn't seem to be a partisan issue. Biden banned the app on his staff's work and personal phones, citing the app has full access to your clipboard on IOS, which could possibly leak login details to the Chinese government.

What I don't understand is why Trump isn't questioning or addressing these dangerous privacy vulnerabilities. He seems only concerned about the ownership of the app, seemingly giving the impression that practices like this are fine, as long as your company isn't Chinese owned. That boggles my mind. Surely you would want companies to refrain from doing stuff like this, even if they are US-owned? A security risk is a security risk, right?

Really not a fan of Tick Tock, but I really don't think banning this specific app is the right move. The US should ban the practices which allow this vulnerability instead, and if Tick Tock does not comply, then ban it. The government's priority should be the safety of its citizens, but instead, Trump's really making it clear his priority is money.

As long as the App sends your info to the FBI or CIA, they're AOK.

 

[Nithavela]

Not a big surprise. When you are working as muscle for your countries biggest tech company, you might as well get a piece of the pie.

The only thing that surprises me is that it's so in your face. More subtle presidents would have hammered this out in a smoky backroom and had an anonymous campaign donation come in a few months after.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It is called “The cost of doing business” the Chinese have to pay if they want to play. Jeepers, it is not like it is the Teapot Dome scandal.

 

[Belk]

At what point did the President of the US gain the power to ban phone apps?

 

[Nithavela]

At what point did the President of the US gain the power to ban phone apps?

I'm sure it's somewhere in the 120+ emergency powers he got in the last 2 decades.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm sure it's somewhere in the 120+ emergency powers he got in the last 2 decades.

Donald puts on a good patriot act.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While China is always considered a threat, banning the platform outright was never a feasible option that would get traction.

For those of us in the IT World, who have experience with different cloud platforms, we're all probably familiar with the concept that data centers that exist in China are specifically separated from the rest of global data centers due to that concern.

Perfect example is Azure in China, the Azure services are still offered, but they are physically separated from the rest of the Azure instances elsewhere on the globe.

Microsoft Azure in China

Most online platforms (whether it be social media, cloud services, etc...) have maintained that layer of separation between China and "everywhere else" due to those security concerns.

TikTok is a little different in that there has already been more than one red flag indicating that data from the US servers has been transferred over to the Chinese servers.

TikTok sent user data to China, US lawsuit claims

This BBC article was from back in December, before it was on Trump's radar...naturally, as soon as Trump showed indications that he was targeting TikTok, the people who are dead set on "opposing Trump no matter what" all of the sudden became die hard TikTok apologists.

As much as I dislike Trump, the IT professional in me has to agree with his targeting of TikTok, in particular, as a unique issue.

If Microsoft Azure, Twilio, AWS, Nexmo/Vonage, etc... all take very special precautions to prevent transfer (or even any form of connectivity) between Chinese data centers and data centers everywhere else in the world for security concerns, it's for good reason and the fact that the TikTok platform still has that open channel of connectivity is concerning.

Bill Gates, Bezos, Jeff Lawson, and Rory Read certainly aren't "die hard" fans of Trump, yet they took special care to make sure their cloud platforms (while still offered to China) segregated China off from the rest of the world. I don't think any of those 4 guys are stupid. They all clearly understood the fact that putting China within the realm of connectivity with other datacenters was a cause for concern.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Alternative title: US president solicits money in exchange for official action

Alternative alternative title: Donald demands a kickback.