blog post
How to Solve the TikTok Dilemma
If you believed for a minute that TikTok is an innocent video sharing platform that simply entertains 179 million Americans and has created multiple micro-economies, and has nothing to do with data capture, PsyOps or MDM, then you would look at the problem as one that can be negotiated.
And in spite of the fact that it is now a key cog in the Chinese war-machine, I still think it can be handled in a negotiated settlement. The key elements are cash, face, Taiwan, trade, sanctions, Chinese equity and code monitoring.
Understanding the Problem
At the heart of the TikTok dilemma is the app’s ownership by ByteDance, a Chinese company, which has raised alarms in Western governments about the potential for user data to be accessed by the Chinese government.
This concern is not unfounded, given China’s stringent regulations requiring companies to cooperate with intelligence work.
Coupled with TikTok’s deep penetration into the personal lives of its users, the app represents a unique conundrum: a global platform beloved by many, yet clearly the lead operator for Chinese surveillance and influence operations.
- Enhancing Transparency and Accountability
The first step toward resolving the TikTok issue involves bolstering transparency and accountability. ByteDance must unequivocally demonstrate that it can operate TikTok independently of undue governmental influence.
Or it must be willing to sell to a US company who can do the same.
This could involve restructuring its corporate governance to include a board of directors with international oversight, ensuring that decisions affecting user data and content moderation are made transparently and ethically. Or, it could involve selling the company to an X or an Oracle who could operate it in the same way with oversight from independent third party observers.
That restructuring should provide a mountain of cash to China in acknowledgement of its creative genius in founding the app and up their equity position in the new company to 10%.
It definitely must provide continual access to its code base by a designated team of software engineers who can attest to the purity of its operations.
- Data Sovereignty and Localization
To address concerns over data privacy and protection, TikTok should adopt a data sovereignty model, storing user data within the user’s country of residence and adhering to local privacy laws.
This model has been successfully implemented by other tech giants and would significantly reduce the risk of foreign surveillance.
Data localization would require TikTok to build or lease data centers in multiple countries, a substantial investment, but one that speaks volumes about its commitment to user privacy.
- Rigorous Third-party Audits
Independent, third-party audits of TikTok’s data handling practices could play a crucial role in building trust.
These audits should assess the security of TikTok’s data storage and processing, the effectiveness of its privacy controls, and its adherence to international standards for data protection.
The findings should be made public, offering a transparent and unbiased evaluation of TikTok’s practices.
- Developing a Global Framework for Digital Platforms
The TikTok problem is emblematic of broader issues concerning global digital platforms operating across diverse legal and cultural landscapes.
As such, there is a need for an international framework governing the operation of these platforms. This framework could outline standards for data privacy, content moderation, and government interaction, providing a common set of principles that platforms like TikTok must follow.
Consequences for violation should be clear and enforceable.
Collaboration among international regulatory bodies, tech companies, and civil society organizations would be essential in crafting these guidelines.
- Empowering Users with More Control
Finally, resolving the TikTok dilemma requires empowering users with greater control over their data.
This means providing clear, accessible tools for users to manage their privacy settings, understand how their data is used, and opt out of data collection practices they’re uncomfortable with.
Education campaigns can also help users make informed decisions about their digital footprint, fostering a culture of privacy and digital literacy.
But We Are Late to the Party
The TikTok conundrum is a microcosm of the larger challenges posed by the global digital ecosystem.
Resolving it demands a balanced approach that respects the rights and freedoms of users while addressing legitimate national security concerns.
It also demands a respectful dialogue between and among international adversaries over the issue of global peace and how we all get there.
By a negotiated settlement, change of ownership, enhanced transparency, adopting data sovereignty, undergoing rigorous audits, developing a global framework, and empowering users, we can navigate the complexities of this issue.
Such measures will not only resolve the immediate concerns surrounding TikTok but also lay the groundwork for a more secure, trustworthy digital future, expanded micro-economies, and a new example of how adversaries can come to the table and leave with satisfactory compromise.
Author
Steve King
Managing Director, CyberEd
King, an experienced cybersecurity professional, has served in senior leadership roles in technology development for the past 20 years. He began his career as a software engineer at IBM, served Memorex and Health Application Systems as CIO and became the West Coast managing partner of MarchFIRST, Inc. overseeing significant client projects. He subsequently founded Endymion Systems, a digital agency and network infrastructure company and took them to $50m in revenue before being acquired by Soluziona SA. Throughout his career, Steve has held leadership positions in startups, such as VIT, SeeCommerce and Netswitch Technology Management, contributing to their growth and success in roles ranging from CMO and CRO to CTO and CEO.
blog post
The Wrong War Machine
Over half a century ago, the Vietnam War saw the debut of precision-guided weapons in their contemporary guise.
Since then, military forces have pursued ever-greater accuracy and power, driving up the costs of such armaments. For instance, GPS-guided artillery shells in the U.S. now fetch a price of $100,000 each. The high expense of these advanced weapons has limited their availability, leading to shortages, such as those experienced by European countries during the conflict in Libya in 2011.
Conversely, Israel has opted to use less sophisticated, unguided bombs over Gaza, prioritizing the conservation of its precision munitions over minimizing unintended damage.
Ukraine
This longstanding dilemma is currently being addressed in Ukraine, where the introduction of first-person view (FPV) drones is transforming warfare.
These drones, modified from consumer models and equipped with explosives, are inexpensive yet capable of causing significant damage by infiltrating enemy lines, targeting tanks, and bunkers with precision. The use of such drones is not only making warfare more perilous for soldiers but also signifies a major shift towards utilizing more accessible, cost-effective technology in combat.
The proliferation of FPV drones, evidenced by thousands of confirmed strikes and the formation of specialized drone units, underscores a trend towards miniaturization and affordability in military hardware. This trend is further illustrated by Ukraine’s ambitious plan to manufacture up to two million drones, demonstrating a shift away from traditional, more expensive munitions.
Ethics?
However, these developments come with their own set of challenges, including ethical considerations and the potential for rapid dissemination among non-state actors, such as militias and terrorists.
The democratization of precision weaponry, as seen in various conflicts around the world, poses a significant threat to both military and civilian targets.
The technological advancements driving this shift, particularly in consumer electronics, are accelerating the pace of innovation and the adoption of autonomy in warfare. This raises questions about the future of combat, including the potential for fully autonomous drones capable of operating independently of human control.
Adapt, Migrate or Perish.
As military strategies evolve to incorporate these new technologies, there is a pressing need for defense planning to adapt accordingly.
The focus on developing low-cost, high-volume weapons systems, such as drones, is crucial for maintaining a competitive edge in future conflicts. This approach will require not only investment in new technologies but also the development of defenses capable of countering the widespread use of drones in both wartime and peacetime scenarios.
The emergence of intelligent drones and the possibility of autonomous swarms represent a paradigm shift in how warfare is conducted, challenging traditional notions of battlefield control and human oversight.
Blurred Lines
As the line between human and machine decision-making in combat continues to blur, the implications for military strategy and international security are profound.
The question of whether humanity has created the “wrong” war machine by developing advanced military technologies, such as autonomous drones and precision-guided munitions, touches on complex ethical, strategic, and existential issues.
This debate is multifaceted, considering the implications of these technologies on warfare, global security, and the future of humanity. Here are several key points to consider:
- Ethical Concerns: The development of autonomous weapons systems raises significant ethical questions, particularly regarding accountability, decision-making in combat, and the potential loss of human oversight in life-and-death situations. There’s a growing concern about the moral implications of delegating lethal decisions to machines, especially in scenarios where distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants is challenging.
- Strategic Implications: From a strategic standpoint, advanced military technologies offer the potential for more precise and effective operations, reducing the risk to human soldiers and potentially minimizing collateral damage. However, they also lower the threshold for engaging in conflict, as the perceived costs and risks of deployment may be reduced when human lives are less directly at risk on one’s own side.
- Security Dilemma: The proliferation of advanced military technologies can exacerbate the security dilemma, where actions by one state to enhance its security (such as developing autonomous drones) prompt others to respond in kind. This can lead to an arms race that ultimately makes all parties less secure, particularly as these technologies spread to non-state actors and potentially malicious users.
- International Law and Norms: Current international laws and norms were established in a pre-digital era and do not adequately address the challenges posed by autonomous weapons and cyber warfare. The international community faces a critical need to develop new frameworks to regulate the use and proliferation of these technologies, ensuring they are used responsibly and in accordance with humanitarian law.
- Technological Determinism vs. Human Agency: There’s a debate about whether technological advancements inevitably dictate the direction of military strategy and international relations (technological determinism) or if humans have agency in shaping how technology is developed and employed (constructivism). The choices made by policymakers, military leaders, and the scientific community play a crucial role in determining the path forward. And technology is advancing very swiftly.
- Existential Risks: Advanced military technologies, especially those incorporating artificial intelligence, pose existential risks if they malfunction, are misused, or lead to unintended escalation in conflicts.
The potential for autonomous systems to act in unpredictable ways, or to be hijacked by malicious actors, adds a layer of risk that could have catastrophic consequences.
The development and deployment of advanced military technologies reflect a balancing act between improving national security and navigating the ethical, strategic, and existential challenges they present.
The question of whether the “wrong” war machine has been created is ultimately a reflection of broader societal values and priorities, highlighting the need for ongoing dialogue, regulation, and oversight to ensure that advancements in military technology serve humanity’s long-term interests and security.
Can we act quickly enough? And are we smart enough?
Author
Steve King
Managing Director, CyberEd
King, an experienced cybersecurity professional, has served in senior leadership roles in technology development for the past 20 years. He began his career as a software engineer at IBM, served Memorex and Health Application Systems as CIO and became the West Coast managing partner of MarchFIRST, Inc. overseeing significant client projects. He subsequently founded Endymion Systems, a digital agency and network infrastructure company and took them to $50m in revenue before being acquired by Soluziona SA. Throughout his career, Steve has held leadership positions in startups, such as VIT, SeeCommerce and Netswitch Technology Management, contributing to their growth and success in roles ranging from CMO and CRO to CTO and CEO.
