{"id":46254,"date":"2024-12-23T16:35:27","date_gmt":"2024-12-23T21:35:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=46254"},"modified":"2025-01-10T11:13:33","modified_gmt":"2025-01-10T16:13:33","slug":"metas-ios-interoperability-requests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2024\/12\/23\/metas-ios-interoperability-requests\/","title":{"rendered":"Meta’s iOS Interoperability Requests"},"content":{"rendered":"

Juli Clover<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple today said that Meta has made 15 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in the European Union, which is more than any other company.<\/p>

In a statement provided to Reuters<\/a><\/em>, Apple said that Meta is asking for changes that could compromise user security and privacy.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

In response to Apple’s comments on Meta’s requests, Meta said the following: “What Apple is actually saying is they don’t believe in interoperability. Every time Apple is called out for its anticompetitive behavior, they defend themselves on privacy grounds that have no basis in reality.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>, Dithering<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Apple says Meta is seeking low-level access that would break both user privacy and device security.<\/p>

Meta says Apple is using “privacy” as a bullshit excuse to avoid even reasonable interoperability.<\/p>

But without reading the requests, there’s no way to say which side is more right than the other.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Apple<\/a>:<\/p>\n

It’s getting personal.\nHow abuse of the DMA’s interoperability\nmandate could expose your private information.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

If Apple were to have to grant all of these requests, Facebook, Instagram, and\nWhatsApp could enable Meta to read on a user’s device all of their messages and\nemails, see every phone call they make or receive, track every app that they use,\nscan all of their photos, look at their files and calendar events, log all of their\npasswords, and more. This is data that Apple itself has chosen not to access in\norder to provide the strongest possible protection to users.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Except that with the OCSP preference that Apple reneged on, Apple does<\/em> get to track the apps that you use.<\/p>\n\n

It’s not clear to me which request would enable Meta to “log all of [the user’s] passwords.” I doubt that’s actually what they want to do.<\/p>\n\n

\n

Separately\nMeta also wants to access their\nmessage history. Access to private\ncommunications needs to remain fully\nunder the control of users.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I would love<\/em> for apps to be able to access my message history because right now Apple doesn’t let me back up or search my own messages.<\/p>\n\n

For instance, if a user asks\nSiri to read out loud the\nlatest message received via\nWhatsApp, Meta or other\nthird parties could indirectly\ngain access to the contents\nof the message. No one is in\na position to understand the\nfull risks of that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

This is one of the scariest examples they could come up with?<\/p>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

These are, so far as I can tell, similar to the things the Commission is requiring here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a> (via Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

The EC preliminary findings under the DMA indicate that Apple must take steps to enable the operability of devices from other brands with its iPhones. The EC has launched public consultations with interested companies to gather feedback on compliance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Steve Troughton-Smith<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The European Commission is going through Apple’s OSes feature by feature, with the help of interested parties and industry collaboration, and deciding where the API lines should be drawn. It’s absolutely fascinating.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

“If Apple presents end users of [3rd-party apps] with a choice regarding the level of background execution capabilities or background connection to a connected physical device, it must present the same choice in the same manner, including regarding time, place, and cadence, to end users of Apple’s connected physical devices. Apple may only present end users with a specific choice […] if Apple implements and offers this choice for its own connected physical device.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

This proposal effectively states that Apple should provide private headers to internal frameworks on request, and developers should subsequently decide whether they need to submit an interoperability request to make the frameworks or APIs public.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Also, just to acknowledge the spin Apple is taking on this, which I have no interest in linking to: they just threw Meta under the bus for interoperability requests, something that is forbidden under the EC’s proposal, triple-underlining why the EC needs to legislate all of this in writing in the first place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n