Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 645 posts

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#451

Post by lumb63 »

mattrighetti wrote: post #415
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer You have proposed no mehcanism to keep monopolies in check. You are a firm beliver in what? > giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments So governments should be even more agressive and disproportionate to be effevtive? That is the inevitable conclusion of your argument.

The conclusion of my argument is that regulations disincentive competition and that’s why you end up with monopolies, so keep regulations at minimum.

Do you have any examples? Net neutrality comes to mind, but that feels a quite extreme example due to complete regulatory capture of the FCC by big telecoms.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#452

Post by SergeAx »

mattrighetti wrote: post #165

This sounds nice, but when you really think about the consequences it really is not. Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps? I don't get w…

Telegram recently implemented some new features, and I was too lazy to update the client. It showed "you need a recent version of Telegram to see this" message instead of new functional. I don't see how other messengers won't do exactly that for unsupported types of content.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#453

Post by krzyk »

MarkSweep wrote: post #450
dcow wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get why you would regulate such a thing. Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. We literally have seen leaked emails where Apple deliberately does this as an anti-consumer platform lock in play. The slippery slope hypothetical you provide is not the reality. Nobody is asking governments to regulate adding cool new…

> Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. I would assume one downside is a higher amount of spam. Currently you need to have an Apple device to send an iMessage. So sending spam is an expensive proposition.

Spam operations have so much money that buying a bunch of iPhones is not an issue, even if they didn't, they could buy older, used iPhones for pennies.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#454

Post by EMIRELADERO »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #327
MattJ100 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact check: The Digital Markets Act explicitly calls out end-to-end encryption as a feature that MUST be preserved if the platform supports it. From Article 7: "The level of security, including the end-to-end encryption, where applicable, that the gatekeeper provides to its own end users shall be preserved across the interoperable services."

The way appositives work is that they qualify the preceding subject. Here you have two appositives so you can read "where applicable" as qualifying "including end-to-end encryption" or "the level of security." If "where applicable" is qualifying "the level of security" the staement reads "the level of security, where applicable, that the gatekeeper provides to its own end users shall be preserved accross the interope…

Civil law countries don't like textualism. The spirit/intent of the law can often trump a literal interpretation of the text, so all this grammatical arguing is moot.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#455

Post by rodgerd »

dcow wrote: post #385
mattrighetti wrote: post #165

This sounds nice, but when you really think about the consequences it really is not. Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps? I don't get w…

> I don't get why you would regulate such a thing. Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. We literally have seen leaked emails where Apple deliberately does this as an anti-consumer platform lock in play. The slippery slope hypothetical you provide is not the reality. Nobody is asking governments to regulate adding cool new…

> Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices.

I am looking forward to Google being able to finally get ahold of my iMessage and hoover it into their surveillance capitalism machine. What a huge benefit to me!

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#456

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

dijit wrote: post #174
mattrighetti wrote: post #165

This sounds nice, but when you really think about the consequences it really is not. Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps? I don't get w…

> [...] without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Feels like a uniquely american take. Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. Leaving behind that most is an ambiguous enough term that means you could basically discredit anything I come up with, how do you feel about regulations that limit the use of harmful or toxic chemic…

> Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good.

Regulations are the best tool for that. But there's always sabotage as a fallback.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#457

Post by krzyk »

ribosometronome wrote: post #412
mattrighetti wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only antidote to this is regulations. Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt smaller businesses in the long run because those giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments and they usually have thousands of smart lawyers ready to find holes and exploit/get around regulations made, usually, by people that does not understand the subject enough…

Regulations can disproportionately affect small businesses and still be worthwhile by virtue of preventing the thing they're regulating. For example, might be harder to start a train company with rigid safety standards but not spilling toxic chemicals over small towns is ideal. I think USB-C's relatively flimsily implemented open standard is kind of evidence of why Apple is hesitant to things like RCS. Good luck char…

Nintendo Switch AFAIR is not USB-C standard comply, they just use the same connector.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#458

Post by rodgerd »

sandgiant wrote: post #364
danrl wrote: post #224

A convenient first step for European governments towards killing effective end-to-end cryptography usage in everyday messaging. It used to be checks notes „terrorism“ and „child safety“ and now the hot new thing is „interoperability“. Who would have thought, that of all the above, „interoperability“ would be the one that makes it into legislation.

I'm curious about this too. At least now I have fairly decent confidence that when I send an iMessage to someone, Apple protects their identity to whatever standard they have. Whatever trust I put in Apple, at least it's a single point of failure. What happens if interoperability is enforced and messages have to be end-to-end encrypted? Wouldn't that mean that any side-loaded Android app would have to be able to get…

> On iOS I guess you could still keep the key private through Apple's SDK, but what about other platforms?

It's such a huge win for Facebook and Google - I'm not worried about "sideloaders", it lets them crack open the privacy of iMessage by simply having a view on conversations they can't see under the guise of interoperability.

The EU are just rolling a surveillance capitalist's wet dream with rulings like these.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#459

Post by codethief »

ognarb wrote: post #158
codethief wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this means the Element One servers have access to the plaintext of my messages?

Yeah, but they are also working on an alternate solution where the bridging happens in the client, which doesn't have this issue.

Nice, where can I learn more?

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#460

Post by krzyk »

influx wrote: post #342
dijit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Feels like a uniquely american take. Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. Leaving behind that most is an ambiguous enough term that means you could basically discredit anything I come up with, how do you feel about regulations that limit the use of harmful or toxic chemic…

Respectfully, Americans can have this take because we created an environment where these companies could flourish. There is no European messaging standard for us to regulate because no European business could get to that point at all.

Signal, Telegram, oh and you know - SMS. Also - GSM.
Post reply on HN