Connect with us

Published

on

New York City’s public Wi-Fi network has nixed a controversial deal with Chinese-owned TikTok to bring the service to “every street corner” after a Post inquiry and as congressional scrutiny over the app rages.

The planned partnership between the tech firm Intersection and LinkNYC was designed to allow TikTok’s “Out of Phone” service — which expands its wildly popular cell video content to public displays everywhere from billboards to bars — to screens on city cell-phone poles and at its Wi-Fi kiosks.

But Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Ritichie Torres (D-Bronx) got wind of the plan and immediately demanded that Mayor Eric Adams scrap the deal, claiming it represented a national security threat, given the company’s ties to China.

Intersection then told The Post on Sunday that the TikTok deal has been iced after the outlet asked about it.

While this relationship never involved the collection or sharing of any data, Intersection has already paused the TikTok content partnership and is in the process of ending it due to recent developments at the federal level,” an Intersection rep said.

That’s a stark departure from what Intersection said when it announced the TikTok partnership in February, with a company representative crowing in a statement, “Our collaboration with TikTok takes their initiative to every street corner of NYC.”

The free public LinkNYC Wi-Fi program is currently provided under a city franchise agreement with a consortium called CityBridge that includes Intersection and Boldyn Networks.

After Intersection and TikTok inked their deal, Gottheimer and Torres learned of it — and cried foul to the city.

“We write to urge you to end the partnership between TikTok, LinkNYC, and Intersection,” the pols told the mayor in a draft letter obtained by The Post.

“This partnership presents a grave threat to national security by allowing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to harvest Americans’ data from the largest city in the United States,” they said.

Gottheimer and Torres pointed out the House voted 352-65 last month to give TikToks Chinese owner, ByteDance, about six months to divest the US assets of the short-video app or face a ban. The Senate is considering similar legislation, although the move faces opposition from TikTok and many of its users.

New York City is the financial capital of the world and home to “troves of sensitive data and information” and 9 million residents, while China’s CCP is “willing to use cyberwarfare and surveillance tactics to breach U.S. institutions,” the House members told the mayor.

“This privacy disaster cannot continue: TikTok and the CCP cannot have any additional avenues to access Americans data,” Gottheimer and Torres said. “Although Congress has taken steps to mitigate these national security threats, New York Citys partnership remains a threat to national security and should be terminated immediately.”

The Federal Trade Commission in 2019 fined TikTok for knowingly collecting the names, email addresses, pictures and locations of children under the age of 13 without parental consent, the lawmakers said.

The social-media app in 2022 also agreed to a class-action settlement for harvesting US personal data from users without their consent and confirmed that China-based employees could gain remote access to Americans data, including public videos and comments, the Congress members told the mayor.

“Using TikTok, China has the ability to control what a generation of kids sees and consumes every single day,” the House reps said.

“We urge New York City to immediately reevaluate this contract with LinkNYC if it continues its
partnership with TikTok.”

The city Office of Technology and Innovation, responding to The Post for the Adams administration, washed its hands of the controversy Sunday, claiming it was not directly involved in the deal.

The City of New York recognizes the public health hazard and cybersecurity threat posed by TikTok and has  undertaken significant legal and policy actions against both,” an OTI spokesman said.

In August, Adams cyber command unit banned TikTok from all government devices and ordered all city employees to delete the app from their work phones within 30 days out of fear of Chinese espionage.

“This administration does not have an advertising partnership with TikTok,” the OTI rep said. “As franchisee of the LinkNYC program, CityBridge is restricted from collecting personally identifiable information and from sharing that data with third parties. Advertising content appearing on any LinkNYC kiosk is not necessarily an endorsement by the City of New York.”

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.

You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.

For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.

And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.

But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.

And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.

There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.

And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.

In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
Image:
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA

Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.

But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.

This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.

But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?

The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.

But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?

Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?

And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?

I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.

And this morning, they issued one.

A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”

So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.

But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.

Continue Reading

Trending