Why is Apple Promoting Chinese Spyware?

China’s espionage campaign has infiltrated our communications networks via their telecom companies, like Huawei and ZTE, and by selling us cheap routers with noted-yet-unfixed vulnerabilities. But there is nothing more pervasive than how China weaponizes our mobile devices via apps.

TikTok is the obvious example. A nearly unanimous Congress heeded the warnings of the Director of National Intelligence and others to require TikTok to cut its financial ties with its parent company (and known-Chinese government corporate affiliate) ByteDance. The Department of Justice has sued the company for blatantly violating federal privacy laws, and states are investigating numerous other privacy violations. Yet Apple continues to promote the app, listing it as “essential” with an “editor’s choice” award.

And TikTok is just the tip of the iceberg…

Banning TikTok is Constitutional

The information wars are upon us, and our enemies are leveraging our reliance on technology to get the upper hand. Nowhere is this threat more apparent than concerning TikTok, the video sharing app controlled by ByteDance, which has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In response to this threat and others from foreign adversaries, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) that would impose foreign ownership rules on mobile apps owned and controlled by the governments of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea that pose a national security threat. It also forces ByteDance to divest from TikTok or face a full ban in the United States.

Within weeks of its passage, TikTok sued the U.S. in the D.C. Circuit Court, alleging that the Act is unconstitutional, which is a strange posture.

DPI Supports Human Rights Organizations in TikTok Amicus Brief

DPI was proud to work with the Campaign for Uyghurs, the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Watch, the International Campaign for Tibet, the Uyghur American Association, the Uyghur Human Rights Project, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in filing an amicus brief in support of the United States and the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Bipartisan Academics Support TikTok Divestiture

DPI President Joel Thayer joined Fordham Law School’s Zephyr Teachout, the Heritage Institute’s Mark Meador, and the American Economic Liberties Project’s Matt Stoller in filing an amicus brief in support of the United States and the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications in the ongoing TikTok litigation.

If You’re Worried About Lina Khan, Then Support Specific Authority Bills

While many FTC Chairmen have been restrained in their approach to using the FTC’s authority, current Chair Lina Khan, a noted anti-tech hawk, has not. Khan’s FTC is in the avant garde on many legal theories regarding competition, antitrust, and consumer protection. Chair Khan has pressed ahead with regulatory gusto by challenging the orthodoxy of how the FTC pursues enforcement actions and the orthodoxy on whether it should conduct rulemakings.

And therein lies the rub for some. There are those that argue bills, like OAMA or KOSA, endow the FTC with authority it doesn’t currently have.

So, do bills like OAMA or KOSA actually expand the FTC’s authority? Or, by crafting specific remedies to specific legislative problems, would they instead constrain the FTC’s general authority? I explore these questions in this essay.

VP Vance Is Bad News for Big Tech Monopolies

The Biden administration has been hawkish when it comes to Big Tech. For instance, the Justice Department has carried on Trump’s Google Search antitrust case. Better yet, the administration is pursuing even more antitrust actions—one against Google for its monopolization of the ad tech market and another Apple for its monopolization of mobile apps. Both are based on probes initiated under Trump. What’s more, the Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan’s leadership has brought a slew of antitrust cases against Meta and Amazon. Khan has even referred a case against TikTok for violating a settlement, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and the FTC Act.

The prospect of passing the baton to a second Trump administration had Big Tech supporters (and libertarian groups) hopeful that the change in administration would lead to a pro-business milieu. However, President Trump’s Truth Social post announcing Vance as his running mate might as well be their elegy.

Bridging the Digital Divide with LEO Satellites

DPI Summer Fellow Sarah Thacker writes in Broadband Breakfast:

“The digital divide is a pressing matter that affects almost 15 million Americans and disproportionately impacts rural populations across the country.

“Thanks to the advent of Low Earth Orbit satellites, we may have a market solution to address this lapse in access. At the outset, satellites have demonstrated that they can provide broadband to rural areas where other means, such as cable or fiber optics, are impractical due to remote locations and difficult terrain. LEO satellites operate in a revolving network and utilize spectrum, which is the proverbial fuel for mobile devices comprised of radio waves and microwaves, to provide coverage and connectivity with high-speed and low latency because of their low orbit.

“Think of all those new applications with the promise of LEOs. For farmers, it could reduce unnecessary energy usage and overuse of resources such as pesticides and fertilizers because networks will be able to offload data from sensors more efficiently. Additionally, real-time data and information can boost yields due to a more precise prediction of the harvest window. These technological advancements provided by LEO satellite broadband can generate a more sustainable and cost-effective agriculture industry.”

Enlist App Stores to Protect Kids

Americans want to protect children from harmful social-media and internet content, but how? Several state bills that have sought to do so have hit a legal wall. The First Amendment generally allows for child-protection measures only as long as they don’t infringe on adults’ free speech. That raises a difficult question: How do social-media platforms determine a user’s age?

What’s the solution? . . . On iPhones and iPads parents can “set age-related content restrictions for those applications, filter online content, and control privacy settings.”

These parental controls could be taken a step further to prevent children from gaining access to harmful and addictive products in the Apple and Google app stores. We already do this in brick-and-mortar shops. When someone tries to buy cigarettes, alcohol or pornography, the cashier must check the shopper’s ID. We hold the store liable when children improperly purchase those products.