The TikTok Case Will Be Determined by What's Behind the Government's Black Lines
lawfaremedia.org
lawfaremedia.org
My problem is the unfair competition of Chinese app devs having access to Western markets when Western app devs don't have the same level of access to the Chinese market.
That said, there's a large difference between the US/Europe spying on each other, and a country like China, who (along with the US and Europe) has plans to go to war should they deem it necessary.
I will not be shocked if this generation is remembered as the biggest security leak in history.
I don’t want to be spied on in general. No matter by whom.
What I don't understand is this hatred of Trump, he was the first one to consider China an enemy, I remember when he started with the tariffs, the whole democratic party went crazy. Trump has been right about many things that now are like normality.
I remember the first act of Biden was to stop a railroad strike and causing a environmental disaster the day after
Democrats (and I don't mean the party) should be worried about Trump and what comes with him.
I don't understand this argument. Are you OK with US companies or the NSA doing it? How does one group doing something bad justify not caring about another group doing it?
Not to mention, the US is an allied country whose interests overwhelmingly align with the interests of most of Europe. Conceptually, surveillance sucks - but if these are my only choices, I'd much rather have a dossier with the NSA than with their Chinese counterpart.
If you have two choices and both behave same on some principle, trying to have a principled stand is futile.
> I'd much rather have a dossier with the NSA than with their Chinese counterpart.
That's a naive view. For Italians, dossier with Giorgia Meloni or her friends can be far more dangerous than with Xi. By proximity and relevance, they are more likely to be vocal about/active in Italian politics. Also, Italian govt. has far more power to influence their lives than Chinese govt. has.
As an Indian, I'll be far more concerned about how much I am tracked by Modi/Indian police/agencies than the Chinese counterparts.
That seems insane given that China has been engaged in a proxy war against Europe (via Russia) for the past couple of years.
The reason the West generally doesn't adopt policies like that is because we believe in letting people speak the truth to power and that generally gives us an advantage because we have more overall perspectives and are more likely to organise around the truth. It is challenging to suppress discussions about our own weaknesses and we are aware of where the major problem points are likely to be.
Mimicking China's policies restricting access to markets is probably a loss for us. We want asymmetry here, it gives us an advantage. Given that we seem to have/be giving up the industrial edge it is worth holding on to what we have left.
This, again, is a free speech issue. If your business truly have nothing to do with free speech (sorry, but iCloud and Microsoft 365 all had a free speech issue since they enable people to connect and publish), for example Amazon, no local partner is required. And Amazon has been there since forever.
Sometimes, even in a domain with free speech issue, you can have market access to China. For example, Steam is able to sell games in China since many years ago, even with their community page frequently blocked by GFW due to mostly unregulated user-generated content. They certainly can be cut-off: they rely on Alipay and WeChat Pay for payment. But this hasn't happened.
Oh, and Epic, GOG too.
> the capital requirements are incredibly high, corruption is through the roof, and when the local partner or the government rip you off, you absolutely will not have equal protection under the law.
While I indeed don't feel safe about the law protection. I wonder have you actually tried to setup a business in China? Or you are just repeating what you saw on Reddit?
https://english.shanghai.gov.cn/en-EstablishaCompany/2023120...
I’m not sure how you’d connect mining, energy, health care, transport, agriculture, or quite a few of those categories to free speech.
> While I indeed don't feel safe about the law protection. I wonder have you actually tried to setup a business in China?
Yes, I’ve been involved in a couple of WOFEs and quite a few JVs. I’ve worked on and off with companies doing business in China for the past 20 years or so. Access to legal protections has improved somewhat, but it’s been a (sometimes very serious) issue for many of the people I’ve worked with.
A lot of people criticize the state of Chinese academics as uncreative and fraudulent, and their industries as copycats, but there might cross a tipping point where China is clearly more innovative than the EU, even as the EU leads the world in democratically-minded regulations and civic rights.
There are many world democracies and autocracies. We absolutely should never expect that merely following some first principles of free markets and democracies should determine why some nations rank atop the world.
Have you ever talked to an average person
The reason the West doesn't adopt policies like this is that we run our own propaganda operations against our own citizens. Corporate advertising is an arm of this. The people and organizations with the most wealth and power can buy the biggest megaphones, and our system just lets those viewpoints get massively amplified. We don't need to suppress individual thought and speech, since it largely isn't competitive in the average American's mind.
they use that information to manipulate you as much as they can
which is most people is a lot more then they think it is
like a _huge lot more_, humans are fundamentally quite manipulable
especially teens, the main target audience of TickTock
well they also can use the information to idk. know exactly when it's the best time to kitnap a kit of someone they want to blackmail, it's not that china hasn't done stuff like that more then just one or two times
I ALSO think the lack of reciprocal market access and the differences between TikTok (its equivalent) in China and the US version are concerning. It’s telling that children in China have caps on how much time they can spend in the app, but the US version doesn’t have any such thing.
If a foreign adversary directly controls the media your citizens consume, that is a pretty huge risk.
i've reported over 100 antisemitic content and comments - none of them have been taken down
simply having an israel flag and yellow ribbon on your tiktok name can result in over 20 antisemitic replies, even if your comment has nothing to do with the conflict
this lack of action seems to contribute to the growing number of teens developing antisemetic views, which is deeply, deeply troubling
moreover, why should one be targeted by harassment by simply being born in a certain country?
When you type something like this, does it at least cross your mind that palestinians are humans, too? For their disgrace, they were also born in a certain country.
Even as a Citizen of the US I can’t hold many government jobs because of my background.
I remember during the Iraq war that many Americans as they traveled liked to put a Canadian flag on their backpack to distance them selves from the actions of their government, which they—and many others—correctly deemed immoral and unjust. Putting the Israeli flag and a yellow banner (which is worn by Israeli government officials) strongly indicates that you are at least sympathetic to the actions of your government.
In the post-Oct 7 context, most likely, and if we're to be charitable here (and absent any other signals to the contrary) what they meant with those symbols was some mixture of "Our people are under attack, we need to stick together" and "Bring the hostages home, please."
Your misconstrual of the yellow ribbon, which obviously has deep grassroots origins (and in the current context only refers to the wish for a speedy return of the hostages) as being somehow suspect simply because it is also worn by government officials -- seems especially inappropriate, in this context.
And it certainly is not appropriate for you to tell them that they should be using the Star of David or other religious symbols, which have entirely personal meaning to them, in their stead.
What matters here is that there's no way these people deserve, or even remotely deserve, to be assuaged with antisemitic abuse (for the sake of simplicity, let's just assume that's what these replies actually were) from anyone. Even if some of these people were also indicating (via the Israeli flag or other means) some degree of support for their government's policies.
That's the main point, and the only point really, to be drawn from these observations of antisemitic abuse (assuming they are accurate).
BTW this applies to pretty much any national flag, in any context. One can think whatever one wants to about it, privately. But there's no reason the person displaying it should be subjected to comments of any kind (particularly comments directed at their identity) simply for displaying it.
It's just one of those things we need to cut people slack for.
on the topic of 'simply indicating strong ties' you might want to see how confederate flag supporters are handled.
Maybe I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't think the gov't should be able to ban any app for the content on that app (barring extreme things like csam, etc.)
There are games, stories, books and movies filled with murder, rape, nazis, evil, gore, antiheroes etc. I was never once motivated to replicate that behaviour. It was always just something crazy/bad people did. All my friends also knew the world is full of crazy people who believe crazy things.
Every guy in my school had seen 4chan atleast if not pol.
At the end of the day what prevents people from turning evil is being raised well. You could ban all depictions of rape/murder in the world but we would still have rapists, racists, theives, and murderers.
I am a free speech absolutist. I do not believe the cost of hiding evil in the way you advocate would meaningfully influence how many evil people are created. I do believe letting the government enforce or police it in any way might seem okay in the short term but overall harm us in the long term.
imagine this scenario: you're just a simple teen being born in a certain country, not having to do with any kind of conflict or politics, and you're bombarded with hate comments like "jump" and "keys", which are euphemisms for self-harm, and even "baby killer" for simply belonging to a certain population or ethnicity.
i have experienced this firsthand - i received these exact replies on a comment i posted on a cute cat video.
no one, especially not an innocent person, should be subjected to such treatment.
If I was the parent of the teen, I would tell them its just stupid shit people say online, and worse some people are like that in real life too. If you were face to face in just about any setting most of them probably would not think or dare say these things. Its just criminal jeering. Dont give it any consideration." And that would probably be the end of it. Maybe they are still upset for a bit, but kids cry and dont want to go on their first day of school, but they must go to school. You either learn now when you are young or learn later when you are an adult and It will be much harder.
If your parents/friends dont somehow guide you through that you are in for a difficult life regardless of whether some random person sends mean unicode at you.
You cant change the world. Go look at the grafiti people used to write in Pompeii 2000 years ago. https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/history/the-bawdy-graffiti-of-p... This type of behaviour isnt going anywhere. Dont open your feelings to it.
such behavior will never go away, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take actions against them.
when TikTok says the comment that told them to end their life has "no violation," it's deeply hurtful and traumatic, and there's no life lesson to be learned here.
we have laws and guidelines for a reason. we enforce them so that we have a functioning society.
We have laws, but that mere fact is not an excuse to make any and every law so it is not a very strong point. Besides, free speech is law, and it is constantly enforced. It is law. And it was a law very intentionally created so that we can have a functioning society, explicitly made from the perspective of someone who was subjected to restrected speech from another government. Free speech is a rare liberty that only the most prosperous nations enjoy, and had to be payed for with millions of bodies and blood. I highly recommend talking to an older person who fled the soviet union.
Side point, I do not believe in hate crime as distinguished from crime. Crime is crime. If I murder someone is it twice as immoral if they are black? There should be no distinction. The mere existence of a legal distinction violates my good sense.
my point is, hate speech such as pushing others to commit suicide or promoting their genocide, should definitely removed in any platform.
saying "don't be thin-skinned" to a person who just received death threats is pathological.
hate speech is definitely not free speech. and addressing hate speech does not limit free speech.
on your advice on talking to an older person, i do have grandparents who were silenced by an oppressive regime. my advice to you is, talk to the people who were actually receiving these hateful comments, perhaps you'd be enlightened.
Every male under 35 has been told to kill themselves on teamspeak/xbox live 1000 times and were fine. Just ignore it. Stop advocating to put us all in a police state because some people dont know how to not look at their phone screen for five seconds, or close their laptop.
Its tiktok. It is 90% ads and 9.9% trash anyways. Just uninstall the app.
I think your understanding of how people form beliefs is not accurate.
Both good and bad ideas are contagious. Humans are vulnerable to social proof. Most humans aren't that smart. Most humans aren't impervious to the madness of crowds. They will adopt the religion of their parents. They will adopt the bigotry of their peers, typically no more and no less. A person from 100 years ago is more racist than a person today because they were surrounded by different norms. People aren't rational actors, they absorb what they're given.
I have no faith in my fellow man after studying history. I have faith only in good systems that attenuate humanity's worst aspects and allow humans to flourish despite our flaws.
Go read 1984. Go learn about how wrongthink influences daily life in soviet era.
The right that you are even allowed to discuss this topic has been paid for in blood over centuries. Be greatful. Dont undo it.
None of this has been a slippery slope to autocracy because that's not how fascists or communists peel back rights. They peel back rights by first undermining democracy and the separation of powers. Then once they've done that, and the Constitution becomes just another piece of paper, the speech rights get removed afterwards. That's the causal directionality.
Anyway, I'm not advocating for more government speech restrictions, so this is a sidetrack. I value the US first amendment as is. But I want private social media companies to do basic moderation. Survival is paramount, and private social media companies allowing rampant race based hatred is doing more harm than good to that objective.
The problem with letting companies decide their own free speech subrules is that I am always inside a company kindergarten. At work, online, in public. Every website. How would I avoid them? Hide in my room with my phone in airplane mode after work? As it remains the only place that we can talk freely is when we are in hiding from perpetual corporate surveillance. Do you really think it was like this when the country was founded? I do not trust any entity to regulate what is allowed to be said or not said at all, be that the government, or bussinesses.
You're conflating the medium (the internet, print media) for the private actors within the medium (Tik Tok, NYT, bookstores). Hate preachers will still be free to create their own little hate websites, newspapers and radio channels as they always have.
None of this is a violation of free speech, and to say otherwise is a modern politicized bastardization of the American sociolegal concept of free speech. The concept was never about an implied right to unlimited discoverability and for private shop owners to carry a hateful newspaper or TikTok to carry a hateful channel. Private storefronts have, for the most part, rightfully rejected to assist in the distribution of harmful material. This worked as a nice balance that attenuated the worst aspects of speech (e.g. the hateful content that incited the Rwandan genocide) via self-regulation, which allowed the government to stay far away.
Being anti Israel is not anti semitism.
Being anti Zionist is not anti semitism.
Saying from river to sea Palestine will be free is not anti semitism.
Calling for the destruction of a state is not antisemitism.
I’ve personally come across 2 actually anti-Semitic content on TikTok and have reported it and have seen it taken down.
I find that a lot of these games are against opponents (real or imagined) that see the chessboard. They see moves ahead and realize that asking question x inevitable leads to y leads to z and z means that I lose money so let's act as if x is ridiculous or not feasible or crazy.
Why would we allow a country that bans all our news and social media tech companies to operate their company here?
If they want to operate tiktok, then we should be allowed to operate google/Facebook/twitter/etc. They can’t ban our companies on national security grounds and then act like we are crazy for banning theirs.
The difference between europe banning us companies vs Europe banning Chinese companies is simply that europeans can operate similar companies in the United States without issue, whereas any service like this owned by europeans would be immediately banned in China.
Tit for tat policies serve as an effective standard for encouraging foreign countries to open their markets, as each side is incentivized to reduce trade barriers in response to similar actions by the other, ultimately fostering fair and balanced economic exchanges. We do it with airlines, why wouldn’t we do it with social media.
I agree 100%. We don’t need to make it any more complicated than this simple argument.
I just don't think my gov't should be able to ban me from seeing information online. I hate China, but I hate my government banning my own consumption of media more.
You'd be destroying your own country by setting precedents and new legislation and suffer its implications forever, when instead you could respond with a capitalism mindset, understand the market and put together a coordinated effort to kick their asses and make them lose mindshare.
It’s also a simple component of how our visa system works. The reason Americans and Europeans can travel to so many countries visa free is that if you want to travel here then you have to let us travel there.
Denying one country the ability to operate here, because they deny us the ability to operate there will still allow basic freedom, because most other countries don’t operate draconian bans like this. The reality is that by applying these rules we are more likely to spread capitalism, democracy and freedom, by demanding China open up their markets.
Every fucking country in the world is now going to point at the TikTok case and justify censorship.
The arguments used for blocking TikTok are literally the same arguments Iran uses to block, say , YouTube. Like, copy paste and put them there.
no one will ever convince me that any of the owners of megasocial companies are benevolent while state backed are somehow different. none of these people should have the kind of power they have—whether governments or billionaires, no matter their nationality.
if we’re declaring that tiktok gives china massive amounts of power then this means that twitter gives elon massive amounts of power and amazon gives bezos massive amounts of power. if we’re declaring this is happening, then no, i don’t want anyone to have that kind of power. particularly small groups of billionaires who are shady and dark af. and who refuse to be transparent. and who refuse to be held accountable. and who actively take a “we rich deserve privacy protections and you non-billionaire peasants give us all of your secrets.”
if we’re declaring tiktok gives this kind of power then we’re absolute fools if we don’t stop them all. and i don’t think that’s hyperbolic.
either way, if social media in its current form is that dangerous, and it very well may be, why do you believe any group should have that kind of power? that seems so strange to me.
Do Americans want the US to be like that?
I think there are many people sympathetic to the government’s position that will be totally satisfied and this quote is not correct at all.
In difference to US companies suing in China where you have on paper also a standing but the bias against you in all kinds of subtle ways is so earth shattering that most times it's not even worth considering suing.
Now that a single foreign company has gained the level of breakout popularity that had already been achieved by 20+ domestic companies, it's time for pearl clutching galore. Every single argument being levied at China and their authoritarianism is a dynamic we've already been suffering from domestic corporations and their authoritarianism. Give me a break!
Instead of hanging their hats on this simplistic election year stunt, the government could still create universal regulations that reign in the surveillance industry and give Americans control of their personal data and digital lives, preserving individual liberty rather than trying to mitigate the downstream effects on the collective. Yet apart from essentially toothless regulations by a few states regarding some very specific types of personal data, still crickets.
So I guess the lawmakers' concerns still aren't really about protecting Americans, but just making sure nominally American surveillance companies at least get paid when Americans get surveilled and propagandized by foreign powers? It seems like no matter which way this case gets decided and which way the precedent gets set, We the People are set to lose.
The issue is surveillance by a hostile nation. It's not a "stupid election year stunt," since we have elections every other year, and that rule would preclude any effort to do anything ever.
Which even without Tiktok, can be straightforwardly done by China (and every other foreign power) paying the domestic surveillance companies for access and influence in straightforward business relationships. And if that gets clamped down on in another decade, then by paying more for not so straightforward business relationships.
China would have to pay Meta and Google a LOT of money to get the same kind of info it gets from TikTok directly. And Meta and Google would report those payments in some way.
Could you expand on specifically what you think is happening? Cynicism is easy but it is no substitute for analysis. Disliking domestic surveillance does not make for a foreign nation automatically getting the info.
A few things are curious to me about all of this, which leads me to believe it’s political posturing.
The EU has a similar arrangement to the US in that they have an “auditor partner” and host the entirety of the EU infrastructure and services within the EU. The EU is not taking severe business actions in the shadow of undisclosed national security grounds.
There’s frequent statements about “massive data collection”. What data? I can only find IP addresses and volunteered contact information being collected. TikTok doesn’t have access to device location data, so IP addresses are the closest there is to geo location. TikTok has said they scrub that when stored - easy to verify.
TikTok has given their auditor (at least in the US) access to the recommendation engine algos. I assume that access comes with some ability to confirm what they audit is what’s actually in use, but haven’t seen reporting that confirms it.
And finally I don’t understand why so many politicians, including all presidential candidates and a not insignificant number of congressional members use TikTok.
Just some of the reasons I think this is more special interest/politically motivated rather than actual national security issues that would be any different than other socials.
That is a good question. Answer: among other data, the very data of the platform itself. Everything nearly every young person has said in a message on the platform, public or private. Everything they view, and how they view it. Same with interactions. Easily enough to build a complete psychographic profile ("who in this list is most vulnerable to coercion?") and a convincing AI clone if one were so inclined.
And that's if the mere content viewed or posted or interacted with, wasn't itself enough for blackmail. Which it often is. It could be something as simple as coercing a summer intern to visit a website on a vulnerable computer, if they want to prevent those DMs to Alice or Bob from being leaked. Oops, now all those trade secrets, aren't.
> I don’t understand why so many politicians, including all presidential candidates and a not insignificant number of congressional members use TikTok.
Most of them, I assume, aren't reaching out to their mistresses or paramours over tiktok. Location data collected by the app obviously is still an issue there.
It's not great to think about, and it's not a justification for actions about which the blackmail revolves, but that's how some intelligence ops have historically happened.
No actually. Tiktok at one point already admitted that they spied on journalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by...
This is something that Tiktok has already done.
I think "selling your information" is a good high level description that conveys the essence of what is going on - your information is being used by whomever will pay to use it. But yes, digging into the details it's more like F/G are trusted third parties who keep comprehensive surveillance records on you, and sell services based on exploiting those records, with an incentive to not leak the whole trove because it's their competitive advantage.
The argument for this topic then becomes if F/G are found to be providing services to foreign governments that undermine national security, domestic laws can then be made to stop this behavior. But this assumes that the way those services can be abused will be blatant, the foreign powers using those services will be easy to spot, and also that foreign governments won't be able to exfiltrate significant parts of the databases through their use of the services (what Cambridge Analytica did).
Focusing on F/G also skips the entire ecosystem of smaller players that don't have the scale, scope, or product to be acting as trusted third parties, but instead do just sell the raw records themselves - to F/G, and also to any startup that comes along with funding and an acceptable narrative. Like the carriers and intermediaries selling phone tower data. And that whole cottage industry of apps and frameworks that collect data. And ANPR and other pure infrastructure providers. And the traditional surveillance industry ("credit bureaus").
The essential commonality in both of those is that while it feels good to address the most glaring high-level problems, as long as the underlying incentives remain it just becomes a game of wack-a-mole. And wack-a-mole isn't enough to stop determined foreign actors.
You cannot do that to a foreign government. I'm not naive enough to think that these corps aren't spying on people or that they're not selling that data to foreign, even hostile actors, but there's simply a different level of consequence.
If you replace China with Russia you can quickly see how fucking absurd this is. Yes NO ONE should be able to do this kind of shit, but it's absolutely another tier of fucked when you don't even have the veil of government as a threat to make people think twice.
I think your definition of surveillance is too broad. If any data broker can pay Facebook to get my data, then it's effectively public data and therefore cannot really be a national security concern. Alternatively, if TikTok hoards all their user data to use against a presidential candidate in 20-30 years, that is a security concern. It's also a concern that China can, at any time, change the algorithm to promote their own talking points. Second hand data and access is simply a much different ball game compared to direct platform control
Addressing "change the algorithm to promote their own talking points" is what I meant by "maintain competition by requiring open interoperability". Bundling content publishing/hosting services together with client presentation software (including feed ranking editorialization) is anticompetitive and should be prohibited by requiring published APIs for all interaction between the two products. Then users could use competitive clients to access TikTok content (and Facebook content, etc), rather than having to suffer whatever manipulation has been deemed legally acceptable.
Well seeing as this other country is likely to be at war with either us or our allies soon, yes that is a pretty big deal.
If a country that we are likely to be at war with has significant influencer over our population, that is indeed a big deal.
> So I guess the lawmakers' concerns still aren't really about protecting Americans,
Of course it is about protecting Americans. It is about protecting Americans and our allies from the effects of an upcoming war between super powers.
That is very much a reasonable concern.
> We the People are set to lose.
No we don't. If an enemy country is less effectively able to wage war against us or our allies, that would be a win for our country. Us and our allies winning wars is better than us losing them.
So, how will the war begin? Who will begin it? How long has the US or its allies been planning to start this war?
China will start it when they invade our ally Taiwan.
It would also, almost certainly involve a pre-emptive strike from china onto american forces. This would be because China knows that the only way to have even a chance of success is to strike first against the USA.
Maybe a politician will be elected in Taiwan that China really doesn't like. Maybe the decades long, existing trends will continue towards the Taiwanese people no longer thinking themselves as having any sort of chinese identity. Or maybe Xi will simply try to distract the population from problems at home with a foolish hopeless war. There are a lot of possibilities!
> How long has the US or its allies been planning
They aren't planning on starting a war. If China doesn't invade Taiwan, there will be no war.
But yes, the USA would absolutely defend Taiwan from an invasion, and already gives Taiwan weapons to do so.
I hope that some of the politicians in china will eventually learn how foolish such an invasion will be. Or, perhaps, China will simply saber rattle and do nothing like it has been sabre rattling for decades.
China has enough problems as it is, but there is still a chance that they will go off the deep end and invade our allies.
If that happens though, the USA will absolutely defend against such an invasion though.
It's idiocy borne from octogenarian hysteria.
Really does sound like you're dressing up a pig treating social media recommendations as akin to warfare.
I don't know anything about the geofencing psyop bit though.
There are dozens of companies with vastly more cultural literacy vying to manipulate you into buying goods every day. Amidst the sea of "look at my notification! Look at my recommendation! ANNOYING clap AD clap TIME!!!!!!!", why do you think some random overly angry/insulting recommendation with a bizarre or nonsensical framing coming from China is going to change minds rather than be ignored?
Foreign propaganda tends to gain traction when laundered through someone people pay attention to. (E-)celebrities, political figures, charismatic activist figureheads. Not a recommendation algorithm endlessly exploited by advertisers to get a tiny crumb of attention from.
The Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense have minimal literacy in the economics of attention and it shows.
no, it isn't tough. Your ex-NATO officials are employees who lack the power to say No to the CCP.
There are very few companies that (1) operate at large scale in the US, and (2) have such an obligation to a hostile government.
Citation needed
Chinese government has a seat on the board and there is a law that requires all Chinese companies provide data if queried (this sounds highly similar to U.S. national security laws).
https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/2015nsl/#_Toc423592316
> Article 11: Citizens of the People's Republic of China, all state organs and armed forces, each political parties and mass organization, enterprises, public institutions and other social organizations, all have the responsibility and obligation to preserve national security.
> Article 77: Citizens and organizations shall perform the following obligations to preserve national security:
> (4) Providing conditions to facilitate national security efforts and other assistance;
> (5) Providing public security organs, state security organs or relevant military organs with necessary support and assistance;
> (7) Other duties provided by law or administrative regulations.
> Article 79: Enterprises, public institutions, and organizations shall cooperate with relevant departments in employing relevant security measures as required by national security efforts.