DOJ opposes TikTok request stall download ban, calls ByteDance CEO 'mouthpiece' for CCP

AppleInsider

The Department of Justice in a court filing on Friday opposed TikTok's requested injunction against an impending ban authorized by the Trump administration, saying a decision in TikTok's favor would weaken the president's power during a claimed national security emergency.

TikTok is facing a rapidly approaching deadline as Trump's executive order calling for a ban of the popular social media app takes effect at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday. The company attempted to stop the measure by filing an emergency injunction with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this week, and now the DOJ has responded.

The Justice Department argues that blocking the ban will "infringe on the President's authority to block business-to-business economic transactions with a foreign entity in the midst of a declared national-security emergency," reports The Verge. Today's late-night filing was heavily redacted, but snippets show an aggressive defense of Trump's order.

Referring to the supposed security threat that TikTok poses, the agency called Zhang Yiming, CEO of TikTok parent company ByteDance, a "mouthpiece" for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He is allegedly "committed to promoting the CCP's agenda and messaging," according to the DOJ.

The argument for banning TikTok in large part deals with user data, specifically where said information is stored. While a section detailing where the agency believes TikTok is holding U.S. data is redacted, a legible portion notes "US user data being stored outside of the United States presents significant risks in this case."

TikTok is looking to avoid an all-out U.S. ban and is in the middle of hammering out a deal with Oracle. A tentative version of the agreement was approved "in concept" by Trump last week.

Terms of the arrangement call for Oracle and its partners to receive a 20% stake in a U.S. TikTok entity, with the remaining 80% held by ByteDance. Oracle will also be granted access to TikTok's source code to ensure the software does not include backdoors. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this week said the new business would be "controlled by Americans," with ByteDance acting as a "passive shareholder."

Following news of the deal, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross delayed enactment of Trump's executive order by one week to Sept. 27.

wood1208

It is good to live in a country with an independence justice system but when it comes to the national security, Court should respect president's decision to ban Tik-Tok. If US Court system can not understand national security issue and support own president than how can anyone trust if other critical national issue comes in front of the Court to decide and make the right decision..

revenant

national security? let's stick with the real threats outlined by the senate and the intelligence agencies.

foregoneconclusion

Banning government employees from using TikTok would be the national security approach. Civilians using TikTok might be a personal privacy/security issue, but it obviously doesn't rise to the level of national security. As usual, the Trump administration doesn't seem to think anyone has rights or legal protection beyond the White House. 

CloudTalkin

wood1208 said:

It is good to live in a country with an independence justice system but when it comes to the national security, Court should respect president's decision to ban Tik-Tok. If US Court system can not understand national security issue and support own president than how can anyone trust if other critical national issue comes in front of the Court to decide and make the right decision..

No they should not.  The courts should serve as one-third of the checks and balances our government is suppose to use lead justly and wisely.  "National security" is not a catch all, blanket term to be used to circumvent the rule of law.  It's not the courts who don't understand.  Based on your post, it's you who lack the understanding.  Real national security issues come with substantiating evidence backing the claims.  Thus far, beyond Tic-Tok users embarrassing Trump, there has yet to be any credible evidence backing national security claims.  Trump using the government to settle personal vendettas doesn't rise to the level of national security.

choctawfootball

CloudTalkin said:

wood1208 said:

It is good to live in a country with an independence justice system but when it comes to the national security, Court should respect president's decision to ban Tik-Tok. If US Court system can not understand national security issue and support own president than how can anyone trust if other critical national issue comes in front of the Court to decide and make the right decision..

No they should not.  The courts should serve as one-third of the checks and balances our government is suppose to use lead justly and wisely.  "National security" is not a catch all, blanket term to be used to circumvent the rule of law.  It's not the courts who don't understand.  Based on your post, it's you who lack the understanding.  Real national security issues come with substantiating evidence backing the claims.  Thus far, beyond Tic-Tok users embarrassing Trump, there has yet to be any credible evidence backing national security claims.  Trump using the government to settle personal vendettas doesn't rise to the level of national security.

Yep. Wood is wrong and you are always right.

CloudTalkin

choctawfootball said:

CloudTalkin said:

wood1208 said:

It is good to live in a country with an independence justice system but when it comes to the national security, Court should respect president's decision to ban Tik-Tok. If US Court system can not understand national security issue and support own president than how can anyone trust if other critical national issue comes in front of the Court to decide and make the right decision..

No they should not.  The courts should serve as one-third of the checks and balances our government is suppose to use lead justly and wisely.  "National security" is not a catch all, blanket term to be used to circumvent the rule of law.  It's not the courts who don't understand.  Based on your post, it's you who lack the understanding.  Real national security issues come with substantiating evidence backing the claims.  Thus far, beyond Tic-Tok users embarrassing Trump, there has yet to be any credible evidence backing national security claims.  Trump using the government to settle personal vendettas doesn't rise to the level of national security.

Yep. Wood is wrong and you are always right.

Well, that's axiomatic. 

freerange

wood1208 said:

It is good to live in a country with an independence justice system but when it comes to the national security, Court should respect president's decision to ban Tik-Tok. If US Court system can not understand national security issue and support own president than how can anyone trust if other critical national issue comes in front of the Court to decide and make the right decision..

NOT THIS PRESIDENT - he wouldn't know the truth if it hit him over the head! And the orange clown understanding national security? Hilarious!

This whole subject is utter nonsense and just plain stupid! US apps like google, facebook and twitter capture tremendous amounts of data which is available to the government (NSA most certainly has found ways to access, and of course through subpoenas!) What's even crazier is that it is for sale through their advertising model.

The orange clown is only doing this to continue to paint China as the enemy to deflect from his own incompetence.

carnegie

Judge Nichols has granted in part and denied in part TikTok’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257.29.0_8_1.pdf


EDIT: A preliminary injunction was granted as to prohibitions which would have gone into effect today and denied as to prohibitions which wouldn’t go into effect until November.

nzhong168

If a president truly consider every actions from national security point of view, Tik Tok probably has very low risk. For folks with attitude:  if Chinese, it must be bad, then I would not respond. But to folks with attitudes: because they had done similar this/that to us all these years, so it is justifiable, then it is more of a reciprocal action to what China did to ban Facebook and Google. I support reciprocal actions, but using national security as catch all phrases, it makes US less creditable. It is more for gaining his hardcore and conservative supports. 

GeorgeBMac

nzhong168 said:

If a president truly consider every actions from national security point of view, Tik Tok probably has very low risk. For folks with attitude:  if Chinese, it must be bad, then I would not respond. But to folks with attitudes: because they had done similar this/that to us all these years, so it is justifiable, then it is more of a reciprocal action to what China did to ban Facebook and Google. I support reciprocal actions, but using national security as catch all phrases, it makes US less creditable. It is more for gaining his hardcore and conservative supports. 

China banned Facebook and Google because they do not want them used to spread anti-China propaganda.   That is their right as a nation.

Here though, we pride ourselves on our 1st amendment rights of free speech and criticize nations like China who do not support those same rights.

So, it is ridiculous that Americans should support Chump's attacks on TikTok to suppress the free speech of the American TikTok users who humiliated him in Tulsa