Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

developers.facebook.com

61–70 of 152 posts

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#61
post #47

If only the DMA also required that users that are not E2E encrypted be displayed as such. As a user, it's important to know when your chat is actually secure. Competition should not be at the expense of security.

DMA requires that the interoperability be at the same level of encryption than normal chats. In whatsapp's case, that means all interoperability must be E2E

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#62
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that they are reluctantly complying in bad faith in the most hostile way they found. Is this going to fly? Where do these 60 days come from for instance? How is it any useful and who is going to want to implement such interoperability under such terms? This reads like a lot of words to say Fuck You Europe to me. Well, feelings are mutual, at least we are on the same page, them and me.

You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith" compliance. Messaging-interoperability is the one aspect of the DMA I don't support. These apps are free to download; and if you care about security (and use Signal) you'll want to avoid cross-service messaging anyway.

> These apps are free to download

Yes but you aren’t truly free to choose which app you download. You have to use the one being used by the people you want to message. That is of strong benefit to incumbents.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#63
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that they are reluctantly complying in bad faith in the most hostile way they found. Is this going to fly? Where do these 60 days come from for instance? How is it any useful and who is going to want to implement such interoperability under such terms? This reads like a lot of words to say Fuck You Europe to me. Well, feelings are mutual, at least we are on the same page, them and me.

You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith" compliance. Messaging-interoperability is the one aspect of the DMA I don't support. These apps are free to download; and if you care about security (and use Signal) you'll want to avoid cross-service messaging anyway.

> You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU;

Even then, that consecutive 60-day limit sounds bizarre. For instance, someone who has dual citizenship could legitimately switch between an EU and a non-EU country every single month. Why shouldn't that person have access to these "Interoperable Messaging Services" when in the EU?

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#64
post #56

Signal or matrix interop would be great. I use WhatsApp as the logistical tool of choice to communicate with my coworkers when away from the company but I wish I could uninstall it. Not my tribe.

There's an interesting philosophical question: if we have a fediverse or open source ecosystem for communication that is deeply integrated into Big Tech, does that make the fediverse stronger, or does it neuter the impact of fediverse as a possible "infrastructure-level" competitor of communication and information sharing?

We can look back in time to see that, ultimately, Google's adoption of XMPP was bad for XMPP.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#65
Gosh, all of this is so locked down.

I've been waiting for this, and hoping I could "just" cook up some of my own code to use with WhatsApp, and/or integrate it with Pidgin or bridge to email or whatever. But the entire process is about as hostile as possible.

For example "Partner shall have in place a dedicated security team" basically excludes most startups, or most smaller companies.

It's not clear to me if this is really complying with the DMA – it's certainly not in the spirit of it, but less sure about the letter of it.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#66

The most hilarious part: "Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into WhatsApp’s Systems or Infrastructure, the Sublicensed Encryption Software, or otherwise make accessible to WhatsApp any viruses or any software licensed under the General Public Licence or any similar licence (e.g. GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGP…

That entire section 6 is weird; because 6.1 talks about gaining access to WhatsApp's "systems, networks, databases, computers, or other information systems owned", and then 6.2 is the bit you quoted that talks about copyleft.

But ... it's not like WhatsApp is hiring me as a sysadmin for their servers, are they? Why would they give me access to their systems? They won't. This seems copy/paste legalese.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#67
post #53
post #2

Why do all Meta websites intentionally break the back button? It makes me irrationally angry every time I visit facebook or instagram for how disrespectful it is, it's like it springs a trap where I'm not allowed to leave in the browser tab I arrived in.

At least on Firefox, the back button continues to work on this site.

Does Microsoft's discussion forums work too? Because I wonder if Firefox has code to ignore backbitten pages.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#68
post #5

There's something really appalling that I discovered lately and I can't believe there isn't enough uproar about it. Every attempt to talk about this gets ignored or buried (maybe by people who want this ""feature"" to be kept quiet) so I will take every opportunity on existing discussions about Facebook to bring it up: Facebook (and TikTok) store tracking data on iOS that the user CANNOT SEE and CANNOT DELETE: • It s…

Hey I can shed light on this. It’s the iCloud keychain. Disabling the keychain doesn’t delete existing entries. There is no way to modify the keychain on iOS (you can on Mac). Lots of apps store sign on data in the keychain for obvious reasons. It would be really great to have a keychain section in iOS’s settings, like Keychain Access on Mac. The dev can build in-app functionality to delete keys from the keychain, bu…

You can add/delete entries in the iOS keychain from the Passwords section.

And I am looking at my iPhone now and Meta does not store tracking data in the Keychain.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#69
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith" compliance. Messaging-interoperability is the one aspect of the DMA I don't support. These apps are free to download; and if you care about security (and use Signal) you'll want to avoid cross-service messaging anyway.

> You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; Even then, that consecutive 60-day limit sounds bizarre. For instance, someone who has dual citizenship could legitimately switch between an EU and a non-EU country every single month. Why shouldn't that person have access to these "Interoperable Messaging Services" when in the EU?

If you switch every month then you will have been present in the EU within any 60-day window?

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey I can shed light on this. It’s the iCloud keychain. Disabling the keychain doesn’t delete existing entries. There is no way to modify the keychain on iOS (you can on Mac). Lots of apps store sign on data in the keychain for obvious reasons. It would be really great to have a keychain section in iOS’s settings, like Keychain Access on Mac. The dev can build in-app functionality to delete keys from the keychain, bu…

You can add/delete entries in the iOS keychain from the Passwords section. And I am looking at my iPhone now and Meta does not store tracking data in the Keychain.

You certainly can not, here's some more info. Passwords and the keychain are separate items.

https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/441112/how-can-i-r...

Post reply on HN