Whatsapp has begun working on support for third party chats (Telegram/Signal)
Whatsapp has begun working on support for third party chats (Telegram/Signal)
The European Union has recently reached an agreement on a significant competition reform known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which will impose strict rules on large tech companies that will have to offer users the ability to communicate with each other using different apps. WhatsApp is one of the companies that will be required to comply with the new regulations outlined in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act. This is because WhatsApp is considered a gatekeeper service since it’s a large tech platform with a substantial user base and falls within the criteria set by the DMA. With the latest WhatsApp beta for Android 2.23.19.8 update, which is available on the Google Play Store, we discovered that WhatsApp is working on complying with the new regulations:
As you can see in this screenshot, WhatsApp is working on a new section dedicated to the new regulations. Since it is still in development, this section is still not ready, it appears empty and it’s not accessible to users, but its title confirms to us that they are now working on it. WhatsApp has a 6-month period to align the app with the new European regulations to provide its interoperability service in the European Union. At the moment, it remains unclear whether this feature will also eventually extend to countries beyond the European Union.
Interoperability will allow other people to contact users on WhatsApp even if they don’t have a WhatsApp account. For example, someone from the Signal app could send a message to a WhatsApp user, even without a WhatsApp account. While this broader network can definitely enhance communication with those people who use different messaging apps and assist those small apps in competing within the messaging app industry, we acknowledge that this approach may also raise important considerations about end-to-end encryption when receiving a message from users who don’t use WhatsApp. In this context, as this feature is still in its early stages of development, detailed technical information about this process on WhatsApp as a gatekeeper is currently very limited, but we can confirm that end-to-end encryption will have to be preserved in interoperable messaging systems. In addition, as mentioned in Article 7 of the regulations, it appears that users may have the option to opt out when it will be available in the future.
Third-party chat support is under development and it will be available in a future update of the app. As always, we will share a new article when we have further information regarding this feature.
You're viewing a single thread.
How about starting with the company who says you have to buy their phone to use their messenger. If Apple isn't eventually considered a gatekeeper, then this is a joke.
iMessage isn't as big in Europe as it is in the US. They just looked at it and declared it's too small to be seen as a gatekeeper, in that market.
No, EU lunched 5 months investigation to decide whether iMessage is big enough.
^^ To add: It wasn’t EU that declared it too small. It was to be on the list until Apple disputed iMessage’s position as a gatekeeper, claiming it was too small. EU will now investigate. Same with Bing and Microsoft Edge.
iMessages automatically becomes a sms app with every other phone, so everyone with a phone capable of sending and reiciving text is able to contact you. No gatekeeping at all.
.The intention of the EU is clearly to have iMessage, the part that handles instant messaging over WiFi, be compatible with other such apps, like WhatsApp. I am not a lawyer, such a loophole may very well exist, but it is frankly foolish to believe EU will back down if WhatsApp for example adds SMS support and calls it a day. I expect the EU to see their intention through.
this whole thing is peak boomer bureaucracy. they just want a one stop shop for data collection and backdoors, not understanding the technology behind it. i don't use whatsapp (even tho is makes me some kind of digital pariah in germanic europe) because i don't want my data processed by meta. if my signal is now "forced" into being readable - and collectable - by whatsapp, my data end up with meta. the european union is doing big tech a favour by forcing smaller messengers to be "compatible" with major ones.
imessage/messages would even be worse because it's not just the iphone's default messenger, but also deeply integrated into ipados, watchos and macos, opening those platforms, too. if all of this would just be an initiative for more openess, the eu could just force them all to integrate the new sms standard google is begging apple to implement for quite some time.
look behind the curtain.
The problem you raise is real, but also avoidable. Nobody forces you to actually communicate via signal with people on WhatsApp. In fact, if you do have people on WhatsApp you want to talk to, you already have an account on WhatsApp and you can keep using that. However, some people might appreciate the possibility to have this bridged communication, especially because it allows for much easier migration to signal (and similar) from people who "everyone is on WhatsApp". The more people move over, the more signal-to-signal communication can happen, etc.
Ultimately it is exactly like email. I think it's still worth using proton, even though 80% of your emails will be coming from or going to a gmail account.
The crux is having the ability to:
- know when you are talking with a user on WhatsApp
- block or refuse to talk with a user on WhatsApp.
Once you can choose, hardcore privacy people can keep talking only between signal users, but the interoperability can help more people moving over in the meanwhile.
This would be a lovely thing if signal also enables the interoperability.
I can’t remember where I’ve seen it, probably on the signal community forum, but I don’t believe signal have any plans to integrate the interoperability stuff; specifically because they can’t guarantee their users won’t have metadata collected by third parties like Meta.
It would be nice if they did offer a build flag or a disabled by default option in the advanced options though. It is still far better than using WhatsApp's app. Because here, right now, nobody uses Signal but WhatsApp.
Well, I am assuming interoperability actually works, if it's only done from one side, it's not really interoperability. As a signal user I would be perfectly fine with an opt-in flag (which Iwouldn't use). But yeah, you are right.
the moment some whatsapper is sending a message my way meta knows my phone number and the connection to the user. i'm not sure if i can stop this the moment the "feature" drops and most ppl would be ignorant to it in the first place. it's just another attack on privacy in favour of "convenience".
Meta knows that a valid number exists, and at most that your number is a part of that social circle. It doesn't know anything about you just yet. If the association between public number and person is public, your problem is beyond whatsapp, of course. Also, I give you a bad news, but all meta applications request access to contacts. If your contact has your number (to contact you), meta already has your number, possibly very conveniently associated with your name, as this is out of your control.
I think interoperability is a net positive, even privacy wise. Mostly because if we level the playing field and remove the network effect, people who care a little might as well use "better" apps, where "better" stops being "all my friends are there".
What makes you think this means Whatsapp will just get access to signals data? If it works by someone saying "sent specifically a Signal message to this number" then the issue is that person's handling of your data. And even then, signal could just play dumb until you yourself specifically say "allow Whatsapp messages from this number explicitly".
Edit: also, wouldn't this make it verifiable that Whatsapp is actually using proper encryption?
the conversation in MY signal would also be mirrored in THEIR whatsapp. also, when it comes to encryption i trust meta not even a single inch.
You didn't even try to answer my question
why? since neither signal nor i can control what meta is able to fetch from it's own clients it's "trust me, bro"-territory. remember when then-facebook promised that whatsapp can keep on doing their own thing? remember when they guaranteed that they won't use whatsapp data for their ad network? so why would i trust them with something so crucial as encryption, let alone whatever third parties have to feed into their ad revenue network because brussles had another normal one?