The prohibition is not on speech. It’s on installing a specific piece of software on government-issued devices, when the government has determined that software is a security & privacy threat.
The professors could legally use a third-party client app (if one exists) to connect to the service.
One example cited by the plaintiffs is Jacqueline Vickery, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Arts at the University of North Texas, who studies and teaches how young people use social media for expression and political organizing. “The ban has forced her to suspend research projects and change her research agenda, alter her teaching methodology, and eliminate course materials,” the complaint reads. “It has also undermined her ability to respond to student questions and to review the work of other researchers, including as part of the peer-review process.”
This is literally preventing some profs from doing their jobs properly. There has to be a way to sandbox it to negate the threat while still allowing academic research and teaching.
The ban says they can’t install the TikTok app on government-provided devices. I don’t see why they can’t have the TikTok app on their personal devices. Or if they have to visit it on a government device, why can’t they use the web interface.
Eh, no reason they can’t use their own data, though. To me, it’s not much different than the restrictions from most companies have, where you’re not supposed to use company resources for personal business.
I’m not familiar with what apps might be available, nor can I be arsed to look. I’d phrase it more like “other ways of accessing TikTok”, in which case the obvious answer is yes, starting with Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc, etc, etc.
If you converted the source code of the tiktok app into a book, and said having that book as a PDF on those devices was prohibited, it would be a violation of freedom of speech, no?
The Bernstein case referred to publishing software source code, which is human-readable and does not come with permissions requirements. A compiled app, coupled with specific permissions requirements for tracking, doesn’t fit the fact pattern of the Bernstein case.
Ok maybe I’m misunderstanding the ban but the book isn’t transmitting data is it?
I thought the TikTok ban was based on who has access to the data, not that the data exists.
I’m pretty certain transcribing confidential information into a book and calling it free speech wouldn’t circumvent the laws restricting access to that info.
The prohibition is not on speech. It’s on installing a specific piece of software on government-issued devices, when the government has determined that software is a security & privacy threat.
The professors could legally use a third-party client app (if one exists) to connect to the service.
This is literally preventing some profs from doing their jobs properly. There has to be a way to sandbox it to negate the threat while still allowing academic research and teaching.
The ban says they can’t install the TikTok app on government-provided devices. I don’t see why they can’t have the TikTok app on their personal devices. Or if they have to visit it on a government device, why can’t they use the web interface.
The ban is on devices and networks, so even if they bring their personal devices to campus or want to use the web that’s a no-go.
Eh, no reason they can’t use their own data, though. To me, it’s not much different than the restrictions from most companies have, where you’re not supposed to use company resources for personal business.
Removed by mod
There are 3rd party tik tok apps?
I’m not familiar with what apps might be available, nor can I be arsed to look. I’d phrase it more like “other ways of accessing TikTok”, in which case the obvious answer is yes, starting with Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc, etc, etc.
If you converted the source code of the tiktok app into a book, and said having that book as a PDF on those devices was prohibited, it would be a violation of freedom of speech, no?
So why should it being a PDF or not matter? Bernstein v. US held that software code is protected under the 1st amendment. https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice
The Bernstein case referred to publishing software source code, which is human-readable and does not come with permissions requirements. A compiled app, coupled with specific permissions requirements for tracking, doesn’t fit the fact pattern of the Bernstein case.
Ok maybe I’m misunderstanding the ban but the book isn’t transmitting data is it?
I thought the TikTok ban was based on who has access to the data, not that the data exists.
I’m pretty certain transcribing confidential information into a book and calling it free speech wouldn’t circumvent the laws restricting access to that info.
First you need to have the source code