Banks are tracking your every click. It could save you thousands

A federal appeals court has turned away a challenge to a fast-approaching nationwide ban of short-video app TikTok unless it divests from Chinese ownership, placing national security before free speech concerns and bringing the app’s 170 million U.S. users closer to losing access to the wildly popular platform. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday sided with the Justice Department, which argued that the U.S. government has the authority to ban TikTok based on the national security risk that TikTok could be pressured by the Chinese government to expose Americans’ data or influence what they see. TikTok’s parent, ByteDance, is based in China. TikTok had argued to the three-judge panel, unsuccessfully, that the ban must be struck down for infringement on the free speech rights of the app’s users and owners under the First Amendment of the Constitution. “The Government has offered persuasive evidence demonstrating that the Act is narrowly tailored to protect national security,” the court wrote in its opinion. TikTok is expected to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case before the sale deadline ends Jan. 19 or to first request that all the judges on the appeals court review the panel’s decision. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. He criticized the ban-or-sale law as being based on “inaccurate” information and said it was “resulting in the outright censorship of the American people.” The appeals court on Friday said years-long bipartisan investigations into the app, and the government’s willingness to consider TikTok’s alternatives, weighed in favor of the law. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for a three-judge panel. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation.” However, the judges said they rejected the government’s “ambitious argument” that the law did not “implicate the First Amendment at all,” saying that it would impose a “disproportionate burden on TikTok, an entity engaged in expressive activity.” The government had suggested that TikTok’s ownership by a foreign company left it without First Amendment rights, despite it having roughly 170 million U.S. accounts. The decision sets up a potential showdown with President-elect Donald Trump. Having backed a ban during his first term in the White House, he is expected to try to halt it, people familiar with his views on the matter told The Washington Post in early November, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. "I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership," said John Moolenaar (R-Michigan), the chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “This went about as badly for TikTok as it could’ve gone,” said Alan Rozenshtein, a former national security adviser to the Justice Department. ,"I see no reason to think the Supreme Court will rule any differently than the DC circuit did." Given that legal situation, he said, Trump could take any of three actions to help TikTok fend off the ban: persuading Congress to repeal the law, directing his new attorney general not to enforce it, or declaring that ByteDance has satisfied the statute by performing a “qualified divestiture” of TikTok. The White House and Trump’s team did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The court decision drew praise from U.S. security hawks on Friday, while free-speech advocates expressed deep dismay. Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the non-partisan Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former U.S. diplomat, called it a “warning shot to foreign companies operating in sensitive sectors.” "This ruling isn’t just about TikTok - it’s a bellwether for how the U.S. will confront tech threats from authoritarian regimes,” he said. Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, criticized the ruling as “hugely consequential for free speech” and called it “disturbing” that the court would support such curbs on speech based on an argument of protecting Americans from foreign disinformation. “Foreign disinformation is a very real thing. It can be a very real threat to the integrity of public discourse in this country,” he said. “But to jump from those propositions to ‘And therefore the government has a compelling interest in suppressing what it determines to be foreign lies’ - I think that’s a really big leap.” The D.C. Circuit’s 65-page judgment was unanimous and joined by judges from across the ideological spectrum. The opinion was written by Ginsburg, a nominee of Ronald Reagan, and joined by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Obama nominee, and Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump nominee. Srinivasan wrote separately to say he agreed that the law does not violate the First Amendment, but for different reasons. TikTok has the opportunity to ask the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case sitting with a full complement of judges or go directly the Supreme Court. Because the three-judge panel was unanimous, and the opinion joined by judges spanning the ideological spectrum, it is less likely that the full D.C. Circuit would vote to review the decision. The legislation, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, was signed into law by President Joe Biden in April, shortly after it was passed by Congress as part of a sprawling package offering aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. The law called TikTok an application controlled by a “foreign adversary” and gave ByteDance roughly nine months to sell the platform to non-Chinese ownership or face a nationwide ban. Finance experts called that time frame almost impossibly short for executing a sale, a complicated transaction that would require regulatory approval in multiple countries. The law gives the president the option to extend the divestment deadline by 90 days if the administration deems the company has made “significant progress” toward a sale. Further complicating the prospects of a sale, China has said it would block the sale and export of TikTok’s recommendation algorithm, one of the app’s most critical components. The looming U.S. ban came as a major shock to many of TikTok’s 170 million users in the United States, who have grown accustomed to using the app for daily entertainment or, in some cases, as the chief basis for marketing their small businesses. Since the end of the Cold War decades ago, the U.S. government has rarely invoked national security to impinge on the operation of media platforms. U.S. officials who backed the ban say that TikTok collects a vast trove of data on its users, ranging from their location to their contact networks and that the company would have limited ability under Chinese law to withhold such data if Beijing officials requested it. TikTok executives argued vehemently that they have firewalled U.S. TikTok user data from the parent company in China, but they failed to convince the U.S. government. The push to ban the app also came amid the backdrop of a broadly deepening U.S.-China rivalry, with Chinese technology companies facing closer scrutiny in Washington than similar firms based in other countries. TikTok filed a legal challenge against the Justice Department in May, arguing that the new law violated the First Amendment. A group of TikTok creators followed with their own parallel lawsuit. The Justice Department and TikTok presented their cases in September in the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. While Srinivasan noted at the hearing that there would be “serious First Amendment concerns” if such a case involved a purely domestic company, the judges noted that there was legal precedent for national security concerns to override free speech considerations. The two sides had requested an expedited judgment from the court by early December to allow time for a potential appeal to be filed with the Supreme Court before the Jan. 19 deadline. In a separate legal case, more than a dozen state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in October accusing TikTok of harming the well-being of children by using addictive product features that keep them hooked on the platform. TikTok said in a statement that it strongly disagreed with the claims. - - - Aaron Schaffer and Ann Marimow contributed to this report.None

Cloud Security Startup Wiz to Acquire Dazz in Risk Management Play

D ear Cathy: We have a wonderful little shih tzu mix that we rescued a few years ago. We absolutely adore her! We have one problem: She barks at the TV like crazy when she sees an animal of any kind. You can see her go on high alert when she hears a commercial, and as you know, animals appear in almost all commercials and many shows. It is so annoying and disruptive; we just don’t know how to stop her other than keep the TV off. We are retired, and TV is our evening entertainment. Any suggestions? — Nancy, Portage, Indiana Dear Nancy: This canine behavior is actually quite common. Dogs often perceive animals on the screen as real intruders into their territory, which can trigger protective behaviors. Some dogs even react to sports shows, like tennis and basketball games, if they love chasing balls themselves. With TVs larger and more realistic, it’s no wonder these visuals feel real to them. To help manage her barking, try desensitization and counter-conditioning. Start by turning the TV on at a very low volume and rewarding her calm behavior with treats or praise. Gradually increase the volume over time, always rewarding her for staying relaxed. When introducing these visuals, use animal shows, as they can help her acclimate to the specific triggers. Pause the TV on an animal image (so there is no sound at first), reward her for staying calm, and then slowly work up to playing the video and then with audio. There are plenty of animal videos on YouTube that you can use to practice with her. Redirecting her focus can also be helpful. Keep a favorite toy or chew item nearby that she only receives in the evening. Give it to her when you think she is about to react to one of those on-air triggers. Pair an alert with commands like “quiet” or “leave it,” and reward her when she listens with the toy or chew. Creating a cozy, quiet space away from the TV can also give her a place to retreat if she feels overstimulated. With training and consistency, she can learn to relax during your TV time. Dear Cathy: I read your column in Newsday today about giving feral cats a good home for the winter and wanted to share an idea. My mom cares for 10 ferals that are comfortable using their insulated houses, but to add to their comfort, we’ve placed heated snow-melting mats from a company called HeatTrak. These mats not only provide a cozy spot for the cats to lounge day and night but also ensure my mom, who’s 87, has a safe, snow-free path for feeding them during winter. We leave the mats on all season rather than just during snowstorms, and the electricity cost is surprisingly low. We even had a custom-sized mat made for a long, narrow walkway near the cats’ houses. While I’m not affiliated with the company, I’ve been impressed with their products. — Laura, Long Island, New York Dear Laura: Thank you for the tip. I don’t normally cover specific products in my column, but the product looks like something people in the northern part of the U.S. might use, so I want people to use the product safely around pets. First, the way you are using the product is perfectly acceptable. HeatTrak says its mats are perfectly safe for small- to medium-sized pets to lie on, and many pet owners have found them helpful in creating warm, snow-free pathways. As you say, pets probably often appreciate the added warmth. But it’s important to note that these mats are not recommended for use with large pets. Apparently, the weight of a larger animal lying on the mat could affect the internal heating elements, potentially leading to overheating or damage. Also, these mats should never be used inside a house, a doghouse or any enclosed space. HeatTrak says its mats are designed exclusively for outdoor use and must remain uncovered in the open to operate safely. Cathy M. Rosenthal is an author and pet expert. Email her at cathy@petpundit.com . Please include your name, city and state. You can follow her @cathymrosenthal. Get local news delivered to your inbox!