The most interesting part of the law is that users will be able to choose their own browser.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-leg...
New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
111–120 of 145 posts
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#112IMVHO communication protocols of anything public MUST be open, peering MUST be allowed as a general policy. It's not a matter of scale: communications exists to communicate, not to create walled gardens.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... iCloud Backup was introduced in iOS 5, released in 2011. It escrows either message plaintext or device secret keys (depending on OS version and configuration) to Apple, encrypted with Apple keys (non-e2e) and readable to Apple (and the FBI and others, some of whom access the data without probable cause or a warrant under FAA Section 702). WhatsApp backup…
> iCloud Backup OK so that doesn't support what you said at all. That's an optional feature (that I do not use), and it's not in any way a "backdoor". Unencrypted backups are a front door. Yes, that iCloud Backups aren't E2EE is bad. Arguably worse (and this would be a more productive area for the EU and others to focus on) is that they're the only general wireless option, that's MUCH more of a nasty tie than messagi…
> That's an optional feature (that I do not use),
It doesn't matter. Everyone you chat with uses it because it's on by default, so all of the iMessages you send and receive are backed up in effectively plaintext to Apple (who turns them over to third parties).
> But none of that is a backdoor in the encryption of iMessage and you do the whole space a real disservice by conflating them.
Unencrypted (or encrypted to the ZK middle service, in this case Apple, being the operator of both iMessage and iCloud Backup) key escrow of end-device secret key material in a system that is advertised as end-to-end encrypted is indeed a backdoor in the end-to-end encryption of that system, as now the secret keys don't exist just on the endpoints - the transit service in the middle has a copy of them, allowing message decryption on a non-endpoint as they transit the middle service.
That is definitionally not end-to-end encrypted. It's end-to-middle-and-end encrypted if the middle device has a usable copy the endpoint secret keys, which Apple does.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would requiring interoperability rob Moxie of his vision?
He indicated multiple times that he does not want other (third party) clients, does not want the server to be open and federated. Let him have it, it works for many people. Imagine you were him and you are getting issues filed from people using services the government forced you to build, or were even build by others but forced on your once clean solution. I'd say "screw you guys, I'm going home" (Build your own solu…
these rules will only apply to platforms with a market cap of over €75 billion or European Economic Area turnover of over €7.5 billion (https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-digital-markets-act-adop...)
I don’t think he has he ambition to even get half-way there, and if he ever gets there, I expect he’ll be able to pay others to worry about that.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#115Just force monopolistic/abusive/anti-competitive companies to expose API's ; it's not a stretch; they did it for banks (psd2) and it's great for consumers and companies alike. Do it for everything; open systems make the world better. And they can still be monetized; it's not like forcing everyone to open source everything. Edit: more subtle choice of words to indicate what I meant
It seems like this is an attempt to destroy the whole idea of a curated platform, though.
iMessage's advantages are a feature of the Apple ecosystem. WANTING it to interoperate with Facebook or whatever is one thing, but legally REQUIRING it seems to me to be very, very dangerous.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#116This annoys me. Rather than robbing Moxie of his vision and forcing Meta to break their business model, why do governments not just lead by example? Start using Matrix, we all know that the signup process could be easier (among many other things), throw some money and devs at the project with that specific goal. Start offering services over Matrix. Public money, public code. The whole world benefits.
I'm pretty sure Signal wouldn't be subject to this. I think it's only for companies over 75 billion euro[1] market capitalization.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-leg...
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#117This annoys me. Rather than robbing Moxie of his vision and forcing Meta to break their business model, why do governments not just lead by example? Start using Matrix, we all know that the signup process could be easier (among many other things), throw some money and devs at the project with that specific goal. Start offering services over Matrix. Public money, public code. The whole world benefits.
While I agree leading by example and using Matrix would be great, it is orthogonal to the proposed law.
More importantly, who cares about Moxie's (imo crappy) vision? If this were to force him to rethink his stance, that's a plus in my book.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. That's why I paid to use beeper. It's amazing to have all my chats in one app again. (Not affiliated just love the experience)
Could you please talk about the experience with Beeper? I always worried that I would get my accounts banned or similar. What do you love, what is missing? Can you organize the chats?
I too have been worried about that! They claim they'll offer a self-hosted version soon. I'd feel a lot more comfortable going that route so my IP is often from the same place.
Right now everything is running on their servers with god knows what IP addresses and from where.
So far I haven't been banned but I have had to reset my Facebook password once.
Instagram suddenly stopped working and I had to reconnect a few times.
So far WhatsApp is ok.
IMHO the iOS app is close to useless and I stopped using it.
The desktop app is where it's at and I'm only using that for now.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy, on some clients/with some servers. These days they do it the same way as most other platforms, by uploading the media to a web server. It took the ecosystem a while to catch up to that though, and there are plenty of clients out there that still don’t support it.
> there are plenty of clients out there that still don’t support it Which ones don't?
Pidgin on Windows, for one. And even on other platforms you have to compile and install the third-party plugin for it yourself, it doesn’t ship with Pidgin - this is beyond what I would expect most users to do. (I imagine the same is true for Adium as they’re both libpurple clients, but I don’t have a Mac handy to check.)
Those two alone are the clients that most Windows/Mac XMPP users I know reach for first, probably out of familiarity.
Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck blocking a person that pretends to be 10000 different strangers.
Exactly this. Exactly if the common protocol is SMS/MMS. So what if I can block people on one platform they can just now hop to another.
or they can create a new account on the same platform. but that's why i don't like platforms that force me to use my phonenumber as a public ID. because already today, if i block you on whatsapp you can find me on signal because my number is the same. so really the interoperability doesn't make it worse than it already is.