this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
329 points (92.7% liked)
Technology
60073 readers
3591 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
TikTok does not grant information dominance unless our government is dumb enough to pull a Russia and allow deployed soldiers in combat zones to post on TikTok, which I sincerely doubt.
Always on location enables machine learning models to be developed on movement. This applies to troop movements, critical civilian infrastructure, and maximizing civil disruption. Always on audio enables the fully automated development of models that sound just like you enabling fake orders to be developed, propaganda, and misinformation at an individual user level. Always on video enables the mapping of military bases and threat profiling. Access to biometric data enables readiness assessments. Combinations of all of the above enable the development of combined information warfare which has not been possible yet.
All of this has literally already been done, just not at scale yet but they are actively working on it. This is real and why we are working to deter it. It is no longer about individual networks anymore.
If it applies to troop movements, our military failed at basic infosec. If it applies to civilian movements outside of wartime, it's useless information, since the US is very easy to map logistically.
All of this has been done, you're right - in like 1812.
The only thing I can do at this point is to encourage you to trust that warfare has indeed changed in the last 200 years and that we (somewhat) know what we are doing at a strategic level.
I'm quite aware of how warfare has changed, as is clearly evident from my posting so far.
You've yet to articulate an actual threat TikTok's data harvesting has on the civilian populace. We agree about military/government security protocols.
One of the clearest takeaways from the Ukraine conflict is how little the Russian MOD will regard civilian protections. We've also seen the same thing with the PLA. War is an extension of politics. If they can use tools to disrupt civilian life and logistics, they will if it means delaying a military response on the Taiwanese island by weeks. That is their goal. Using information warfare also makes it more likely that they can disrupt us enough without attacking our military. This makes an attack on Taiwan more likely, not less.
In terms of an actual threat, I detailed several ways that they can use the data to develop models of behavior and highly individualize it. It is combining the models and access with traditional and recently developed propaganda techniques that effects can be coordinated. Think of it more like traditional cyber warfare but much more effective and about combining individual actions. One person flushing a toilet does not do much but a whole town at the same time can create an issue.
Additionally, civilians are allowed on military bases. We are not in the habit of banning phone software at gate entries. There's no way to keep it out realistically speaking. Children have phones at home and largely follow their parents. With that level of data access and a 40+% marketshare, there is no escaping a CCP sensor at any given point now when you go out in public. It really does not take that much data to develop an information model and the more data we give them, the more accurate they will be.
That is just the short-term uses of the data. China now has data to use against future people with security clearances, politicians, and industry leadership that will aid their intelligence services for generations.
You're retreading ground weve covered but keep mentioning an "information model" bogeyman that you have not yet clarified as a threat.
Our difference of opinion is due to me not seeing that as a credible threat. Can you address that specifically?
I cannot go into too much detail on a public forum but it makes traditional cyber warfare and information warfare much more effective and targeted. Machine Learning models can identify exactly the types of information, true or not, that are more likely to radicalize you and incite action at the intended moment. It takes the conversation from demographics to individualized and targeted propaganda. It then can be used to predict outcomes and effects based on location data, provide real-time feedback, and ensure that all of the individualized effects happen at the exact moment you need them to. For a real-world example that was not an attack, look at the 2014 Atlanta snowstorm. Individually, all of the problems were solvable. When the effects were combined at the same time, you had a complete collapse of public services and society for days.
These models are not possible with only API access.
You quite simply are not going to get a specific answer on this because it would reveal methods and techniques.
People have a right to consume propaganda if they like, though. I'm not sure how this is a unique threat.
If people are susceptible to propaganda, by problem is with the people, not the service providers