Earlier this year, TikTok quietly changed its policies on when and how it would share data with governments.
As the company negotiated terms with the Trump administration to allow its app to continue operating in the US, it added language to its policies that covered data sharing not only with law enforcement but also with “regulatory authorities, where relevant,” and weakened its promises to inform users about government requests for their private data.
Now, TikTok has repeatedly declined to respond to Forbes’ questions about whether it has shared or is sharing private user information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or its investigative arm, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The policy changes, along with the company’s silence about them, leave open the possibility that it will do so if requested.
The Stored Communications Act limits the types of information that tech companies can disclose about their users’ communications without a court order, but DHS and ICE have nonetheless begun demanding data—including, in at least one case, “user names, phone numbers, IP addresses, and other identifying information”—from platforms. The requests have come in the form of administrative subpoenas, which are signed by an ICE or DHS agent, but not a judge. Administrative subpoenas do not carry the same legal weight as judicial subpoenas, and companies cannot face legal consequences for ignoring them unless a judge orders them to comply with them. Additionally, they generally cannot prevent companies from contacting users about requests for their data.
Meet: Google says Australian law on teen social media use ‘extremely difficult’ to comply with
Historically, tech giants have tried to ensure that their users have the opportunity to challenge requests for their private data in court. And in recent months, people who have challenged ICE subpoenas have had some success. Both Facebook and Instagram recently received subpoenas from ICE demanding information about the people behind anonymous accounts that followed and reported on the identities and movements of ICE agents.
The apps’ parent company, Meta, notified the users behind the accounts, and in at least one case the firm shared a redacted copy of a subpoena with a user. Both users successfully challenged their subpoenas before judges, who told Meta not to hand over their data to the government without a court order. (In a previous life, I held content policy positions at Facebook and Spotify.)
However, one of TikTok’s recent policy changes could make it harder for some people to challenge ICE subpoenas seeking their data. The change eliminates the company’s promise to notify users before handing over their data to the government. Without notification, a person whose information is being requested does not have the opportunity to challenge the subpoena.
As of April 25, TikTok’s website said, “Our policy is to notify TikTok users before disclosing their data to law enforcement.” But now, the company says only that it will inform users about requests for their data “where required by law,” rather than as a matter of course. The new policy also says that the company will notify people if it discloses their data, rather than before it does so, a difference with significant consequences for anyone hoping to challenge and prevent a disclosure before it happens.
The company did not respond to repeated questions about why it changed this policy language.
In most cases, federal law requires tech companies to notify you before responding to an administrative subpoena for your data.
But since its implementation in 1986, that law has contained an exception that threatens to overturn the rule: The government can ask companies to delay notifying a person if there is reason to believe they might flee upon receiving it, and there is every reason to believe that people wanted by ICE could flee to avoid detention. Additionally, in countries where notification is not included in the law, TikTok’s policy changes could have an even greater impact than in the United States.
TikTok’s new policies also include softer language related to data requests. An FAQ answer that previously said “Yes, TikTok rejects data requests from law enforcement…” now says “TikTok may reject data requests…” (emphasis added). The policy also renamed a previous section (previously titled “reporting obligations”) as “Proactive reporting obligations.” The subsection addresses situations where “TikTok may disclose user data without receiving a formal legal request (based on valid legal process).”
The updated policy says examples of this type of disclosure “include reporting suspected child exploitation to the U.S. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,” something TikTok has done hundreds of thousands of times, and all tech companies do. It also mentions “reporting suspicious financial transactions to the appropriate authorities” as a second example.
The company did not respond to a question about why it changed this policy.
The Trump administration has attempted to exert influence over many companies since the start of its second term, but its control over TikTok is unique.
You may be interested in: Report raises concerns about age verification software due to social media ban in Australia
The White House is working with Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping to negotiate the sale of parts of TikTok’s US business to a group of largely US-based investors, including well-known Trump supporters Larry Ellison and Lachlan Murdoch, and Emirati investment firm MGX, with any deal subject to both Xi and Trump’s.
Furthermore, under US law, TikTok should be banned in the country. The only reason it’s still online is because Trump has issued multiple executive orders instructing the Justice Department not to enforce the ban law, a decision he could still reverse if he changed his mind.
In January, facing imminent enforcement of the ban law, TikTok briefly turned off its service in the US and turned it back on, sending notifications to its 170 million US users thanking and praising Trump for helping the app get back online. In the days before the blackout, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew praised Trump, calling him “a president who really understands our platform.” Along with other big tech CEOs, Chew joined Trump at his inauguration in January and sponsored an inauguration party for the president’s supporters.
TikTok is not the only big tech company bending to the will of the Trump White House. Shortly after Trump’s second election victory, both Meta and Google opted to pay eight-figure settlements in response to dubious lawsuits from the president. Under pressure from the Department of Justice, Google and Apple recently removed apps from their stores that allowed people to report and follow live ICE agent sightings, and Meta removed a Facebook page with a similar purpose (also at a request from the Department of Justice). In early August, Apple CEO Tim Cook presented Trump with a block of gold containing a piece of iPhone glass and announced plans to create an “American Manufacturing Program.” The president had previously threatened to impose a 25% tariff on iPhones if Apple did not move its production for US sales to the United States.
TikTok’s approach to government data requests recently landed it in trouble in Indonesia. Between August 25 and 30, a wave of violent protests swept the country as citizens became aware of police brutality and lavish benefits for lawmakers, and some took to TikTok to speak out and organize. On the 30th, TikTok voluntarily disabled live streaming in the country for several days because it did not want to contribute to increasing tensions, but after the protests subsided, the government demanded data from TikTok on the people who were live streaming before the service was suspended.
TikTok initially responded by telling the government that its internal policies prevented the disclosure of the requested data. But it appeared to change its approach after the government suspended TikTok’s license to operate in the country.
Days after the suspension, the government announced that TikTok had shared the data it had requested. The data was extensive, including “everything from web traffic patterns to suspicious online gambling activity,” according to Bloomberg. (The government insisted that the data was anonymized, so it could not be used to track individuals.) Consequently, the government lifted the suspension of TikTok’s license. TikTok told Bloomberg that it respected laws and regulations and wanted to “ensure that our platform provides a safe and responsible experience for the community in Indonesia.”
This text was published originally in Forbes US
Do you use Facebook more? Leave us a like to be informed
