Anna Eshoo points out how difficult it is to prove the Chinese government couldn’t compel TikTok to disclose data, no matter how many safeguards TikTok adds.
Chew starts explaining its plans for Oracle to safeguard data: “Our plan is to move American data to be stored on American soil—”
“You’re sidestepping,” Eshoo says.
Rep. Michael Burgess has officially entered an article published by The Wall Street Journal this morning casting doubt on whether the Chinese government could block a TikTok sale.
China’s Commerce Ministry said Thursday that a sale or divestiture of TikTok would involve exporting technology and had to be approved by the Chinese government.
The reported efforts by the Biden administration would severely undermine global investors’ confidence in the U.S., said Shu Jueting, a ministry spokeswoman.
Shou Zi Chew is delivering his opening statements, which you can read here. A sampling:
Let me state this unequivocally: ByteDance is not an agent of China or any other country. However, for the reasons discussed above, you don’t simply have to take my word on that. Rather, our approach has been to work transparently and cooperatively with the U.S. government and Oracle to design robust solutions to address concerns about TikTok’s heritage.
TikTok is on the witness stand today, but introductory statements from Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone are also hitting on general-purpose anti-social media talking points, including privacy reform. “I know this is about TikTok, but I’m focusing all my attention not only on TikTok, but on these wide concerns about social media,” Pallone says.
Our policy reporter Makena Kelly is in Washington, DC live at the hearing, where Shou Zi Chew has just walked in.
So Vice has some excellent backstory on a viral tweet showing a real, published book that warns you not to share it with your friends. But please, for now, just look with me upon the legally unenforceable travesty that is the warning:
“This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it wasn’t purchased for your use only, then please return to your favourite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.”
First sale doctrine? Never heard of it.
Weighing intellectual property against free speech is a delicate balancing act, and today’s Supreme Court argument — involving a trademark infringement case called Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products — is serious business. It’s also about a dog toy shaped like a whiskey bottle full of feces.
“Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel’s likes its customers even more, and doesn’t want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.”
While you’re at it, check out the supporting brief from internet art outfit MSCHF, asking each Supreme Court justice to complete a connect-the-dots puzzle. It’s a weird case all around.
