Sucks. I hope we do get those rights to resell our digital licenses one day.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
EU Proposes a Mandate on Interoperability of Messaging Platforms
- Thread starter thisismadness
- Start date
This is nothing really all that new. 20 years ago we had AIM, MSN Messenger, ICQ, Yahoo Chat, etc...
I don't think that's what this user meant. I think what they mean is that, since all these messaging apps have the user's number associated to them, it would potentially lead to all other apps receiving the same messages. That means that someone texts you on one app and it suddenly appears in all of them. Then you'd also have the issue of receiving multiple notifications for the same message across different apps.
On that particular subject, I am in full agreement with them. I use different messaging apps for different purposes but they are ultimately tied to the same number. There needs to be an opt-out feature or my phone will light up like a Christmas tree 24/7.
Yea one of the many pitfalls that will need to be addressed. This is not going to be easy...
ugh :-( you are right though - what a terrible time to have IM.
I still remember those things as being quite new - the idea that you could see someone was typing and replying in real time was crazy.
The only internet phase that I missed out on, and regret, was the BBS days.
Q: reading the requirements for being a "gatekeeper":
I'm pretty sure PlayStation checks all three boxes. Not sure Xbox specifically qualifies, but Microsoft as a whole might, and Nintendo is currently has a market cap at about €64b, so currently won't be affected (although that looks like more a currency conversion issue than anything else). But yeah, Timmy's EGS for PS5 dream might be closer than we think.
This is also going to allow third party appstores and sideloading, based on macrumors? Awesome.
www.macrumors.com
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
European lawmakers have provisionally agreed upon a new law that would force Apple to allow user access to third-party app stores and permit the...
www.macrumors.com
Back then, you could use something like Trillian, which supported different messaging protocols
Yeah and it sucked. At least back then though, some of those chat services could be used from separate clients like Pidgin since they supported the open XMPP protocol or at least had usable APIs. We've actually regressed since then in terms of cross-compatibility.
Will this force ISP's and telecoms to get out of the way with establishing a supposed universal standard?
Yep my wife does but she's used to it from living in texas when we met and still does purely to message her family there. Even people here I know with iphones don't use it and install other apps to message everyone including their friends also with iphones.
Europe uses mostly WhatsApp, i also know no one that uses iMessage.
But it is a good ruling.
I tried to switch to Signal, because WApp got bought by facebook, but most didn't switch.
So i have now Signal and WApp.
I hope with this i can delete WApp in the future.
EDIT.
edited
OP
OP
I had not actually considered that. Xbox also seems way past the threshold. They made ~16 billion last year and have 100+ million XBL users, MS is worth 2 trillion.
It some ways I support this. Facebook messenger is the most popular here in Australia and I don't want anything Facebook on my phone/in my life.
But then I'm concerned with how this will impact E2EE messaging, the Eu doesn't seem to be the biggest fan of encryption. iMessage and Signal are ETEE by default, which I like. And what about something like Sessions? It's E2EE over a tor like network.
But then I'm concerned with how this will impact E2EE messaging, the Eu doesn't seem to be the biggest fan of encryption. iMessage and Signal are ETEE by default, which I like. And what about something like Sessions? It's E2EE over a tor like network.
Signal is ETEE if the other person uses Signal.
You can also send SMS with Signal to everyone, those aren't E2EE.
I believe that is how will be WApp or FB Messages be handled, they will not be E2EE.
They will only be E2EE if you use the same App.
I have no clue from where the idea comes that the EU is against encryption, the personal data rights in the EU are one of the strongest in the world.
Maybe I misremembered something. I know for things like data retention and privacy the EU is pretty good for.
This is definitely interesting. I do wonder however, since consoles require devkits to develop for them (I guess except Xbox?) could that be a loophole that would protect them from this?
IIRC WhatsApp actually uses Signal's E2EE implementation, but there's still privacy concerns around Facebook's ability to collect metadata about those messages.
Last edited:
Just looked it up.
At the end of last year the EU talked about checking encrypted content per AI against child porn and terrorism related messages.
So you are kinda right.
But to be fair, i believe this is done by almost every intelligence service.
EDIT:
Source
Makes kinda sense, i believe Signal is introduced by the founder of the original WApp.
I changed, or wanted to change to Signal, because i truly believe FB will use WApp for advertising.
Last edited:
Yea that's what I was thinking of.
My concern with those types of laws is there expansion or abuse. Here in Australia we had metadata retention laws which were braught in to combat those types of crimes, but then local councils started using it to track down parking tickets and such.
Metadata can be quite powerful too. You might not have the content but you can know who, when, where, and the size of a messages you sent.
That isn't a good look and surely misusage of those datas.
But it would also happen if you just use one messeger and there is no interoperability.
Some People only trust Apple because of that, they don't give out the "keys" for iMessage to the NSA and CIA, lol...
For the first part it depends. This will result in the apps defaulting to the lowest common denominator, and some apps might be more leaky than others.
And if they're all working together it might be hard to tell. Like say signal and whatsapp start working together, they would both be E@EE but whatsapp will record way more metadata, and you wont know as in signal it will still look encrypted. Even if your not concerned with government spying facebook already builds profiles of people not even using their services though connections like this, this will help them more.
And with iMessage iirc it's E2EE is good but iCloud backups aren't, Apple has the decryption keys to everything on iCloud (other than keychain?). So Apple or some gov can look at my pp pics if they want lol
I don't see that, Signal will receive WApp messages like SMS/MMS right now.
Without E2EE.
Same will be true for every "foreign" message.
Also it is of course an option, the rule is to have this option for the consumer.
You could block it like you can block SMS/MMS in Signal today.
If Signal and WApp uses the same E2EE algorithm it might even work together.
It isn't a risk for the consumer.
There is no third handler by E2EE encryption, just the 2 apps that might be able to produce codes per a known algorithm.
The algorithm might be a company secret, but has not to be a secret to create a secure code/encryption.
The algorithm for Signal is even open source and on github.
No. Even with public websites the encryption keys must be shared it's just done with certificates that authenticate everyone is who they say the are. However adding in something that already has E2E encryption with no third party auth means either all previous messages must be lost or you accept at some point the keys are gonna leak and man in the middle attacks will occur.
It also adds the following problem:
Who's guilty if customer data is sold via a small messaging app that was only able to get access to messages due to interop?
Well… I can't imagine how this would reflect on the UX/UI of the apps, but it's definitely going to be complicated.
If someone messages me from WhatsApp and I'm using that same number in WhatsApp, iMessage and Telegram, would I receive the message in all three? Is the sender going to choose where it's sent to?
This interoperability can get quite messy regarding settings and routings. As a Product Designer, I can say that solving some of those issues isn't a task I'd love to be assigned.
It is just said that every App must have the option to receive messages from another App.
Highest possibility is that those messages aren't E2EE.
I used Signal as an example, it can receive and send SMS/MMS today as an option.
Of course SMS/MMS aren't E2EE when using Signal, that will be the same with WApp or iMessage messages.
If you want E2EE and high security then don't receive or send SMS, iMessage or WApp messages with an different app.
Or maybe better use Threema.
With Threema you even have to scan a generated local code on the display of the receiving mobile.
This law doesn't say that E2EE has to be shared, just an option to receive and send messages to other providers.
Then I'd really have to ask what the overall impact actually is. If you can use a phone number, any messages can be exchanged via sms. I think of the major platforms only Facebook Messenger doesn't have this?
Or just mandate a standard like RCS must always be an option in your app.
For me the impact is that i can delete WApp and write to WApp users while i use Signal.
I don't need E2EE, i'm boring, and most people i know are also not really interested in encryption, or even in privacy.
You can't facetime per SMS or MMS, also provider support for SMS and MMS will end in the coming years.
Of course it doesn't function if someone says he doesn't want to receive unencrypted Signal messages with WApp.
Most people are shouting stuff on twitter, facebook and telegram, they are not interested in E2EE.
Nobody was interested in Threema, because the app isn't free.
EDIT:
I mean that is what it will be, RCS messages between apps.
All I want is for Apple to replace the iMessage fallback with RCS as opposed to SMS.
The only reason I still have FB Messenger on my phone is to send high quality pictures to my wife as MMS sucks for that (I have a S22 Ultra and she had an iPhone 12 Pro) and to video chat with my son.
I'd love to ditch Messenger.
The only reason I still have FB Messenger on my phone is to send high quality pictures to my wife as MMS sucks for that (I have a S22 Ultra and she had an iPhone 12 Pro) and to video chat with my son.
I'd love to ditch Messenger.
Since you don't care about encryption or privacy can I see every message you sent to your lovers for the past five years?
Thanks.
Email is standard across platforms (Gmail users can email Yahoo users), and the world is a better place for it.
I assume, the same way they do currently: by making the experience much worse for non-Apple users.
Strictly speaking, so does Apple (well, membership to a subscription, but Apple does reserve the right to kick out developers), and iOS is pretty explicitly the primary target for this law.
Last edited:
iOS does not require a developer account or a "devkit" to develop apps for the platform. It just requires it to publish to App Store.
And 99.99% of users exclusively download apps from said App Store. IMO, it's a distinction without a difference.
That is not relevant to what I'm saying? I'm saying if Xbox wanted to make their own app store for PS5 with native PS5 games, Sony would have to give them devkits to make them. If you want on iOS you can make an app and distribute it on sideloading platforms like AltStore because you can develop apps using xCode and iPhone Simulator and even your own retail iPhone, however if Apple required users to have an iPhone "devkit" to develop apps at all, then this would be a lot harder to do.