- TikTok executives came in for a grilling this week by lawmakers in the UK and Australia over its Chinese roots.
- Politicians took advantage of TikTok’s difficulties in the US and India to probe deeper into its claims that it doesn’t give people’s information to the Chinese government.
- TikTok’s security chief, Roland Cloutier, told Australian senators that the app does not share code with its domestic Chinese sister app, Douyin.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
In late 2019, TikTok ducked multiple appearances in front of a Congressional hearing in the United States – but representatives have appeared before lawmakers in the UK and Australia in the last week to answer questions about how the app works.
These appearances come as TikTok tries to allay mounting fears, drummed up by President Donald Trump, that it would or could hand over people’s personal data to the Chinese government.
Trump has attempted to force a sale or deal for the app that would dilute control from its Chinese parent company ByteDance. Separately, India has banned the app, citing national security concerns.
Politicians in both the UK and Australia this week honed in on TikTok’s claims not to share data with the Chinese government and the ownership structure of the app. They probed claims made in the media in both countries that TikTok has not been asked by the Chinese government to share user data, and would refuse to do so if asked.
Some of the most robust questioning came from Jim Molan, an Australian right-wing senator, who alleged that TikTok in Australia had lied about saying it would not share data because it would do so if a legitimate, legal request was submitted through the US Department of Justice.
TikTok acknowledged in both hearings that it could accede to requests made under the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT), “which is legally bindable across the globe,” said Roland Cloutier, TikTok’s chief security officer, who served the US Air Force and Department of Defense before joining TikTok in March 2020.
“The request would have to come from the United States government through the MLAT process,” said Cloutier, and come from a law enforcement agency.
“Like the People’s Liberation Army police?” responded Molan.
Brent Thomas, TikTok’s Australian public policy director, offered to show Molan a diagram showing how the US Department of Justice would have to hand over the data, which the senator refused to accept.
When TikTok tried to explain the process is the same that other social media companies are compelled to follow, Molan said: “That’s not the question. What you have written to us is misleading.”
More light was also shed on TikTok’s content moderation policies, with Australian general manager Lee Hunter offering to share the company’s playbook for moderating content in the country as evidence to the inquiry.
Over in the UK, TikTok’s European public policy director Theo Bertram told parliamentarians that 363 of the app’s approximately 800 UK employees are devoted to content moderation.
Globally, TikTok has moderation teams covering 36 languages in 20 different countries worldwide — but none in China, Hunter also said.
TikTok representatives in both countries were also asked to distance TikTok from Douyin, its Chinese counterpart.
A claim that the two apps share the same source code was made in a submission to the Australian inquiry that also alleged TikTok’s algorithm was so powerful it could train people to believe propaganda messages “in the same way a dog can be made to sit with food training”.
“Let me be direct: it is not the same source code,” Cloutier told Australian senators. “As the individual responsible for securing the source code, ensuring the integrity of the source code, and testing that source code for quality and security assurance, I am telling you, it is not the same source code.”
TikTok has long claimed that its roots in China have meant it is held to a higher level of scrutiny and additional burdens on disproving claims.
That seemed to be borne out in the Australian hearing, when Cloutier’s categorical denials about shared code — made under oath — were met with the response of “that’s an interesting point” from Molan, who cited “a deficit of trust” with TikTok.
