During a parliamentary committee, Head of Data Security, Will Farrell, states that Australian data is accessible “strictly and under specific conditions
TikTok executives faced a parliamentary committee investigating foreign interference on social media, where the company’s head of data security, Will Farrell, stated that Australian user data is accessible to TikTok employees in China under stringent conditions. This comes after the Australian government, along with Canada, the US, and the UK, banned TikTok from government-owned devices due to concerns about its ties to China.
James Paterson, a Liberal senator and the committee chair, who has been leading the opposition’s efforts against the app, interrogated TikTok executives about the frequency of Australian user data access by staff in China.
Although Farrell was unable to provide an immediate count, he acknowledged that instances of Australian user data being accessed by TikTok staff in China have occurred. He explained that several safeguards are implemented, such as granting employees minimal data access necessary for their tasks. Additionally, employees must justify their data access with a business rationale, which requires approval from their manager and the TikTok database owner. If data is accessed across national borders, it must be authorized by the global security team based in the US, responsible for monitoring all data access.
According to Farrell, employees cannot access data without providing a clear justification and obtaining appropriate levels of approval. He added that a similar security review process would be implemented if an employee in China attempted to modify the recommendations algorithm.
Ella Woods-Joyce, the local head of public policy for the company, stated that China’s 2017 national security law, which mandates the submission of personal data relevant to national security to the government, would be applicable to any company operating with staff in China. When questioned about the circumstances under which TikTok would decline to comply with the law, Woods-Joyce clarified that TikTok had never been requested by the Chinese government to provide personal data and would refuse such a request if it were made.
In an opinion piece published in the Daily Telegraph in October, TikTok’s ANZ managing director, Lee Hunter, refuted reports suggesting that TikTok monitored the precise location of American citizens, stating that they were untrue.
At that moment, he stated that TikTok has never been utilized to specifically “target” individuals belonging to the US government, activists, public figures, or journalists. Moreover, he affirmed that they do not provide these individuals with a distinct content experience compared to other users.
During the committee hearing, Hunter reiterated his support for the ideas conveyed in his initial article and attributed the unauthorized access to the data to “rogue employees” who had subsequently been terminated from the company. He emphasized that “serious misconduct” had occurred among these individuals. Furthermore, he clarified that GPS location information was not gathered in Australia.
Paterson directed his criticism towards WeChat, another app owned by China, which was requested to attend the committee hearings on multiple occasions but declined to do so. The company has asserted that it does not have any operations in Australia, and Paterson acknowledged that due to this absence, the parliament lacked the authority to compel the company to testify before the committee.
Paterson highlighted that the app’s failure to appear could result in unfavorable recommendations against it in the committee’s report. He emphasized that expert witnesses had presented compelling evidence to the committee, indicating that WeChat engages in surveillance, censorship, and foreign interference on its platform. Despite having an estimated userbase of 1 million people in Australia, WeChat lacks a presence in the country and does not even feign participation in parliamentary inquiries.
The situation becomes unsustainable when a company, having significant influence over our diaspora communities, persists in operating without consequences and displaying a complete disregard for our government.
Paterson emphasized that if the committee’s recommendations turn out to be unfavorable towards WeChat, the company will have only itself to hold responsible.
In a letter shared by Paterson on Twitter, WeChat stated its commitment to provide written responses to the committee and address any inquiries they may have.
According to Paterson, the company’s ongoing disregard for the parliament demonstrates a clear contemptuous attitude.
In contrast to TikTok, WeChat does not fall under a general restriction imposed on federal government devices, despite the presence of similar concerns regarding data collection and app security.
