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

New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#121

Post by lotsofpulp »

MattJ100 wrote: post #85
lotsofpulp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy is it to send full quality videos and pictures via XMPP? I feel like the main difference from my Pidgin days and today is that these days there is a metric ton of large media files being sent around.

It's as easy as via any other method. XMPP supports both server-intermediated transfers (where the file is uploaded to the server - this is what almost all platforms choose to do these days), but it also supports negotiated p2p streamed transfers (suitable for huge files, essentially unlimited, but less reliable, e.g. it requires both sender and recipient to be online at the same time).

I assumed it costs Apple quite a bit for the bandwidth and storage of all the media files they send, and hence why Apple is the only one that offers to do it at full quality.

I assume it costs Meta a lot too, and so they reduce the quality of media flying around on WhatsApp.

Would others have to be able and willing to pick up these costs if the networks were opened up? I am thinking even if Apple/Meta were forced to open their networks, they would balk at subsidizing outsiders.

I am not clear what the backend costs and cost allocation would be, for example, if someone using iMessage sends me a 4K video to me and I am not using iMessage, and I am offline, but I will expect to see it next time I open up Pidgin on my laptop.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#122

Post by zahllos »

RenThraysk wrote: post #97
zahllos wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno how to say this but Noise is really a set of possible handshakes with various security guarantees (or, more like, aims, which we are reasonably sure are met), which kinda followed on from X3DH/Signal Protocol. I'm unsure how you got that Noise is a client-server protocol and Signal is peer to peer. When you send a whatsapp message you still send it to WhatsApp servers and the client-server protocol here is pr…

Being a developer and implemented both, I know. Maybe I just mispoke.

Looks like I fired off a bit too hard as I saw peer to peer and... That means something specific. Sorry about that. There's far too much 'zero knowledge encryption' on the internet, eurgh.

Seems WhatsApp does use noise pipes for some some long running connections. Just checked their doc to be sure.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#123

Post by RenThraysk »

zahllos wrote: post #122
RenThraysk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a developer and implemented both, I know. Maybe I just mispoke.

Looks like I fired off a bit too hard as I saw peer to peer and... That means something specific. Sorry about that. There's far too much 'zero knowledge encryption' on the internet, eurgh. Seems WhatsApp does use noise pipes for some some long running connections. Just checked their doc to be sure.

I misspoke, should have said end to end.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#124

Post by parkingrift »

tinus_hn wrote: post #62
parkingrift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete control of the presentation of content, editorializing said content, and arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t allowed. And they also still don’t want to be treated as publishers. It’s hard for me to muster up even the smallest amount of sympathy for these vampires. I expect this will take a decade to shake out as US tech firms work tirelessly to protect their spyware walled garden models.

You’re severely overreacting. These features you so passionately hate are an important part of the reason why the general population is using the apps, and the business model of the large majority of chat apps is definitely not ‘spyware’. What’s going to happen, if this ever goes through, is that the networks will open some kind of api so outsiders can send and be sent basic messages. And you will never be happy usin…

>These features you so passionately hate are an important part of the reason why the general population is using the apps, and the business model of the large majority of chat apps is definitely not ‘spyware’.

Disagree, and disagree. Access to friends and family is why people use these apps. Once these tech companies are forced to tear down those walls people will be free to use the app of their choosing to communicate with whomever they prefer. Spyware is harvesting data without the explicit consent of the user.

>What’s going to happen, if this ever goes through, is that the networks will open some kind of api so outsiders can send and be sent basic messages. And you will never be happy using it because you’ll always look like an outsider.

They'll be fined 10% of their global revenue for trying to play such an obvious and silly game.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#125

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

RenThraysk wrote: post #35
mfer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely not. Europe is in to open standards, interoperability, and things like this. Far more than the US.

Imagine there is a break in a cryptographic algorithm, say AES256-CBC. Now can I replace it in my messaging app, without having to coordinate with every other messaging app provider? Suddenly governments have a lever to prevent adoption of securer standards.

AES256-CBC is already not IND-CCA secure, FYI.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#126

Post by parkingrift »

drstewart wrote: post #86
parkingrift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete control of the presentation of content, editorializing said content, and arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t allowed. And they also still don’t want to be treated as publishers. It’s hard for me to muster up even the smallest amount of sympathy for these vampires. I expect this will take a decade to shake out as US tech firms work tirelessly to protect their spyware walled garden models.

Can you explain what TikTok does differently that makes it so open and free compared to evil US tech companies?

The only difference between TikTok and any other big tech company would be their (lack of) Congressional bribery.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#127

Post by parkingrift »

Jcowell wrote: post #67
parkingrift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete control of the presentation of content, editorializing said content, and arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t allowed. And they also still don’t want to be treated as publishers. It’s hard for me to muster up even the smallest amount of sympathy for these vampires. I expect this will take a decade to shake out as US tech firms work tirelessly to protect their spyware walled garden models.

Since we’re talking about the messaging component of services , what messaging service “[editorize] said content? [arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t allowed] Everything so arbitrary. Either allowing everything or nothing is not sustainable for anything on the internet so you need arbitrary rules to stop arbitrary things.

This proposal covers more than messaging. I don't know of any messaging services which editorializes content.

>Either allowing everything or nothing is not sustainable for anything on the internet so you need arbitrary rules to stop arbitrary things.

It doesn't need to be so complicated. Allow lawful content and maintain your neutral status, or only allow content you choose and become a publisher.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#128

Post by MattJ100 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #121
MattJ100 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as easy as via any other method. XMPP supports both server-intermediated transfers (where the file is uploaded to the server - this is what almost all platforms choose to do these days), but it also supports negotiated p2p streamed transfers (suitable for huge files, essentially unlimited, but less reliable, e.g. it requires both sender and recipient to be online at the same time).

I assumed it costs Apple quite a bit for the bandwidth and storage of all the media files they send, and hence why Apple is the only one that offers to do it at full quality. I assume it costs Meta a lot too, and so they reduce the quality of media flying around on WhatsApp. Would others have to be able and willing to pick up these costs if the networks were opened up? I am thinking even if Apple/Meta were forced to…

The way it generally happens on XMPP and Matrix is that the upload is stored at the sending user's server, and a URL is passed around. That means the choice is up to the operator of the sender's service as to what size files they allow, and how long for.

Applying this model to the case of a 4K video sent from iMessage, the file would be hosted by Apple, and you would merely receive a reference to it (i.e. URL) so you can fetch it when you come back online. It's natural to assume this model, as most platforms are already using it today, but of course this is all speculative until things get opened up.

On a final note, Pidgin is a poor choice of example in this case. It supports a much older version of XMPP, its support for the protocol actually hasn't evolved much in the past ~10 years or so. In particular it's missing support for this very file transfer mechanism, and a whole bunch of other things such as multi-device and modern E2EE (though there are third-party plugins attempting to plug some of these gaps). If you're planning to do XMPP in 2022, practically any other XMPP app that's actively developed supports the newer mechanism and many other modern features Pidgin lacks. For desktop that includes Gajim (cross-platform), Dino (Linux, experimentally Windows) and Beagle IM (MacOS).

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#129

Post by teekert »

V1ndaar wrote: post #117
teekert wrote: post #46

This 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.

Do you realize what you are saying? Would you feel the same when someone with the opinion that your vision is crappy, was to force you to rethink your stance on anything? Let alone on something your put insane amounts of time into?

I realize now that Signal will not be affected, only very large companies will. Nevertheless I find your attitude very concerning.

Re: New EU law could require iMessage and WhatsApp to work with other platforms

#130

Post by aaomidi »

tinus_hn wrote: post #74
thinkmassive wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“block stranger requests” could mean using your contacts as an allowlist

As long as you hardly ever meet new people, of course. Obviously this is not a trivial problem to solve, otherwise spam wouldn’t exist.

Facebook messengers chat requests has basically solved this problem.

New person goes to chat requests, they communicate through another channel they've sent you a message, you go open the graveyard of chat requests and accept theirs.

Post reply on HN