ІНСАЙДЕР УКРАЇНА

A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday upheld a law requiring the wildly popular social media app TikTok to be sold to a non-Chinese owner or face closure in the United States by next month. The court cited “persuasive” and “compelling” arguments presented by the federal government that TikTok poses a risk to national security.

The ruling could leave the 170 million Americans who regularly use TikTok without access to a social media platform that has enjoyed explosive global growth in recent years. It could also mean that the millions of Americans who create content for TikTok — some of whom rely on monetizing that content for their livelihood — could be cut off from their audiences.

The government has argued that TikTok presents a unique danger to national security because it collects vast amounts of information about its users, and because the Chinese government ultimately exercises control over its parent company, ByteDance, and over the algorithm that determines what content TikTok users see.

Because ByteDance is in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) it is subject to that country’s laws, including measures requiring private companies to cooperate with government intelligence agencies.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the government has a compelling interest in taking steps “to counter the PRC’s efforts to collect great quantities of data about tens of millions of Americans” and “to limit the PRC’s ability to manipulate content covertly on the TikTok platform.”

TikTok signals an appeal

TikTok immediately signaled that it would appeal the circuit court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

In a statement posted to its website, the company said, “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue.”

The company said that the law underlying the case “was conceived and pushed through based on inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” and warned that it “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the U.S. and around the world.”

The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the company’s appeal, and it was not immediately clear that it would do so. If the high court accepts the case, it is possible that it would block the government from enforcing the law until the case is decided.

President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a TikTok ban before changing his mind during the recent presidential election, has suggested that he will act to save the app when he takes office. However, it is unclear what options he might have for doing that.

Lack of trust

In April, President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act into law. The measure gave TikTok 270 days to find a way to separate itself from ByteDance before a ban on the application would kick in on January 19, 2025.

The federal government made it clear that the only kind of divestiture that it would accept was a complete separation of TikTok from its Chinese parent. The company offered alternatives, and established TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc. (TTUSDS) as a subsidiary in Delaware, to wall off U.S. user data from ByteDance.

However, the government cited instances in which U.S. user data that the company claimed to have shielded from the PRC was, in fact, accessible to ByteDance employees in mainland China. It told the court that it lacked “the requisite trust” that “ByteDance and TTUSDS would comply in good faith” with any arrangement other than complete separation of TikTok and ByteDance.

In Friday’s ruling, the judges wrote, “The court can neither fault nor second-guess the government on these crucial points.”

First Amendment concerns

TikTok and its supporters have claimed that severing TikTok from ByteDance is both practically impossible for technological reasons and legally impossible because the Chinese government will block the sale of the company. Therefore, they claim, the law constitutes a de facto ban and a violation of the guarantee of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In a sign of how seriously the court took the First Amendment arguments, the panel of judges agreed that the law should be subject to “heightened scrutiny,” which the Supreme Court has applied to measures restricting fundamental rights.

In the end, the panel determined that the law satisfies even the most stringent form of “strict scrutiny,” which requires that the government “prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”

Free speech advocates respond

The decision came under immediate criticism from free speech advocates.

“Although we’re still analyzing the decision, we find it deeply disappointing,” David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement emailed to VOA. “The court appropriately applied strict scrutiny as we have urged it to. But the strict-scrutiny analysis is lacking, relying heavily on speculation about possible future harms.

“Restricting the free flow of information, even from foreign adversaries, is fundamentally undemocratic,” Greene said. “Until now, the U.S. has championed the free flow of information and called out other nations when they have shut down internet access or banned online communications tools like social media apps.”

George Wang, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told VOA that the court accorded “a shocking amount of deference” to the government’s claims about the danger TikTok poses to national security.

“We should be really wary whenever we allow the government to use vague national security arguments as a justification to shut down speech,” Wang said. “That’s a tactic of authoritarian regimes, not democracies. It’s usually the job of courts to stand up to the government when it infringes on the constitutional rights of millions of Americans, and I think the D.C. Circuit really didn’t do that today.”

‘A victory for the American people’

Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, the senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and one of the original sponsors of the law requiring TikTok’s divestiture or ban, released a statement Friday praising the court’s decision.

“With today’s opinion, all three branches of government have reached the same conclusion: ByteDance is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance is a national security threat that cannot be mitigated through any other means than divestiture,” Krishnamoorthi said.

“Every day that TikTok remains under the Chinese Communist Party’s control is a day that our security is at risk,” Krishnamoorthi added.

Representative John Moolenaar, the committee’s Republican chairman, said in a statement that the ruling was “a victory for the American people and TikTok users, and a loss for the Chinese Communist Party, which will no longer be able to exploit ByteDance’s control over TikTok to undermine our sovereignty, surveil our citizens and threaten our national security.”

Moolenaar also held out hope to the app’s users that access to it may, in the end, be preserved under a Trump presidency.

“I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” Moolenaar said.
…

Using sailing ships to move cargo may be making a comeback. These days, eco-friendly watercraft are equipped with the latest technology. Elena Wolf has the story, narrated by Anna Rice. Camera: Max Avloshenko 
…

WASHINGTON — Amid widespread protests in Kenya this summer over a controversial finance bill, the country’s Communications Authority announced it did not intend to shut down internet access. The next day, however, Kenya experienced a countrywide loss in internet connectivity. 

The main internet service providers said the outage on June 25 was caused by an issue with undersea cables. But the incident caught the attention of digital rights groups, who said the timing of the outage “strongly suggests” an intentional action. Various governments have used such shutdowns to maintain control, these groups say. 

Many governments justify the shutdowns as moves to promote public order and safety, Nompilo Simanje, Africa advocacy and partnerships lead at the International Press Institute, told VOA. 

“The key reasons really are to restrict communication, restrict free expression, restrict online mobilization, restrict online freedom of assembly and association, and also restrict access to information,” she said. 

Access ‘could be about life and death’

Digital watchdogs have documented several cases across the African continent in recent months where access to the internet or social media was blocked or cut off at crucial moments. It isn’t always clear if the cases are the result of a direct order, but the timing often suggests it is, analysts say. 

Within the past year, digital rights group Access Now has documented shutdowns in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Mauritius and Equatorial Guinea. Nearly all take place alongside events such as protests or elections. 

But these shutdowns can be harmful to the country’s residents, Felicia Anthonio, campaign manager at Access Now, told VOA. 

“It not only disrupts the flow of information, it also makes it impossible for people to access information in a timely manner,” Anthonio said. “When we are talking about crisis situations, information can be like a lifeline, and so, disrupting access could be about life and death in conflict situations.”  

Governments that restrict internet access in one instance are likely to do so again, Anthonio said. 

Before the June incident in Kenya, access to the messaging app Telegram was blocked in November 2023 during national examinations. At the time, the move was presented as a way to prevent cheating during exams.  

Access to Telegram was stifled again last month during national examinations, which lasted over three weeks and extended into the week after examinations finished, according to James Wamathai, advocacy director for the Bloggers Association of Kenya.  

“It was really a huge inconvenience,” Wamathai, who lives in the capital, Nairobi, told VOA.  

Local media reported that Kenya’s Communications Authority had ordered the block to prevent cheating. 

Many people were unable to contact friends or relatives who lived in countries that had banned WhatsApp.  

Kenyans do not have a lot of experience with internet shutdowns, Wamathai told VOA, and many residents do not know how to install workarounds like virtual private networks or VPNs. The current government under President William Ruto is the first to enact such restrictions, he said.  

Kenya is a part of the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of 42 countries that advocate for online freedom around the world. Anthonio said it is “depressing and sad” to see a member of the coalition engage in such practices. 

The Kenyan Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.  

Anthonio said democratic and repressive regimes alike have enforced restrictions similar to those experienced in Kenya. 

“It’s really hard to tell what the motivation is, aside from the fact that the government just wants to exert control to show that they are in authority and can restrict people’s rights when they please,” Anthonio said. 

Mauritius for example, planned to impose an internet shutdown for 10 days ahead of its November election.  

Authorities said the block was an effort to control illegal publications that may “threaten national security and public safety,” Anthonio said. She added that this rationale is just “jargon” that governments use to justify shutdowns.  

The shutdown in Mauritius came as a direct order from the government. After protests from media and opposition parties, the ban was lifted after 24 hours. 

The ban was troubling to rights groups. Simanje of IPI said Mauritius “has generally had a very good track record of internet access, online safety and promotion of digital rights.”  

Periodic outages

Other African countries have experienced shutdowns on several occasions.  

In Tanzania, Access Now has documented several internet and social media outages or blocks. Access to the social media platform X was blocked in late August, around the same time that online activists began a campaign highlighting murders, kidnappings and disappearances within the country. This suggested the block was an official order, Access Now reported at the time. 

Tanzania’s embassy in Washington refutes that claim.  

“We would like to assure you that this information is false,” a spokesperson told VOA via email. 

In July and August, the island of Annobon in Equatorial Guinea experienced a total internet shutdown, leaving its residents “completely cut off from the world,” according to Access Now. This came as a response to protests against the deterioration of the country’s environment due to mining activities, Anthonio said. 

Similarly in late October, Mozambique experienced internet connectivity problems after national election results were announced. These shutdowns took place in the middle of violent protests against the reelection of the party in power, which left at least 11 people dead, according to a report by Al Jazeera. 

The Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique and Mauritius embassies in Washington did not respond to VOA’s requests for comment.    
…

WASHINGTON — U.S. government agencies held a classified briefing for all senators on Wednesday on China’s alleged efforts known as Salt Typhoon to burrow deep into American telecommunications companies and steal data about U.S. calls. 

The FBI, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, the National Security Council and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were among the participants in the closed-door briefing, officials told Reuters.  

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden told reporters after the briefing he was working to draft legislation on this issue, while Senator Bob Casey said he had “great concern” about the breach and added it may not be until next year before Congress can address the issue. 

Republican Senator Rick Scott expressed frustration with the briefing. 

“They have not told us why they didn’t catch it; what they could have done to prevent it,” he said. 

Chinese officials have previously described the allegations as disinformation and said Beijing “firmly opposes and combats cyberattacks and cyber theft in all forms.” 

Separately, a Senate Commerce subcommittee will hold a December 11 hearing on Salt Typhoon and how “security threats pose risks to our communications networks and review best practices.” The hearing will include Competitive Carriers Association CEO Tim Donovan. 

There is growing concern about the size and scope of the reported Chinese hacking into U.S. telecommunications networks and questions about when companies and the government can assure Americans over the matter. 

A U.S. official told reporters a large number of Americans’ metadata has been stolen in the sweeping cyber espionage campaign, adding that dozens of companies across the world had been hit by the hackers, including at least eight telecommunications and telecom infrastructure firms in the United States. 

“The extent and depth and breadth of Chinese hacking is absolutely mind-boggling — that we would permit as much as has happened in just the last year is terrifying,” Senator Richard Blumenthal said. 

Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr said Wednesday he will work “with national security agencies through the transition and next year in an effort to root out the threat and secure our networks.” 

U.S. officials have previously alleged the hackers targeted Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Lumen and others and stole phone audio intercepts along with a large tranche of call record data. 

T-Mobile said it does not believe hackers got access to its customer information. Lumen said there is no evidence customer data was accessed on its network. 

Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg, AT&T CEO John Stankey, Lumen CEO Kate Johnson and T-Mobile took part in a November 22 White House meeting on the issue.  

Verizon said “several weeks ago, we became aware that a highly sophisticated, nation-state actor accessed several of the nation’s telecom company networks, including Verizon” adding the incident was focused on a very small subset of individuals in government and politics. 

AT&T said it is “working in close coordination with federal law enforcement, industry peers and cyber security experts to identify and remediate any impact on our networks.” 

CISA told reporters on Tuesday that it could not offer a timetable for ridding America’s telecom networks of all hackers. 

“It would be impossible for us to predict when we’ll have full eviction,” CISA official Jeff Greene said.
…

Bluesky, a decentralized social media platform, recently experienced significant growth, surpassing 22 million users. The surge is attributed to users migrating from X due to their dissatisfaction with changes under Elon Musk’s ownership. Andrei Dziarkach has the story, narrated by Anna Rice. Camera: David Gogokhia
…