Recent searches
Search options
Today: #DMA #compliance workshop with #Meta lawyers at the @EU_Commission:
The #DigitalMarketsAct mandates Meta to "enable end users to freely choose to opt-in to [combining or cross-using personal data] by offering a less personalised but equivalent alternative".
When I pointed out to Meta that by offering users to either #consent to #SurveillanceAds or pay € 275 per year for #Instagram & #Facebook isn't "equivalent alternative" they said, Meta *has* to do that because of #GDPR 
Really??
Background: #Meta had outlined in depth how all other instances of personal data cross-use and combination across services have now a real consent screen included that enables people to choose data use or "less personalised but equivalent" alternatives; aka not paid (as required by DMA Art 5.2).
Just not for #surveillance ads, presumably because this would impact Meta's bottom line.
#Meta lobbyist: "Nothing in this space is as secure and tried and tested as the #Signal protocol."
CC @signalapp
Ouh, so I just asked #Meta/#WhatsApp whether #interoperability with @matrix (should they request it) would apply to @element Inc, the Matrix.org reference server, or the entire federation?
Answer: probably the legal entity, so either Element Inc or the Matrix Foundation. I assume they would have to choose which server this includes.
But (did I hear that correctly?) the Meta person almost sounded as if a broadening to the federation could potentially be envisaged in the future.
In any event, it sounds like #WhatsApp is planning to make #interoperability opt-in only; but not in the way I suggested, which is give WA users a yes/no button when a non-WA user asks to connect, just like #Signal does already for Signal users.
I interpret #Meta's response to my question as meaning that WA users will have to actively switch on interop in the settings before people can ping them.
Today: #DMA compliance workshop with #Alphabet / #Google :)
While Alphabet seems to be better in terms of the new #browser & #search choice screens, they have a strange view regarding their new obligation to allow un-installing pre-installed apps like #PlayStore or #Gmail:
Alphabet's lobbyists argue un-install and remove are two different things and as the #DigitalMarketsAct's Art 6(3) only mandates un-install but not removal, the current "deactivation" feature in Android would be enough. 
Haha #Google bitches against #Apple: "We allow 3rd party app stores, #sideloading, automatic updates for sideloaded apps, and #PWA for free."
If you needed any more proof that the so-called #AppAssociation #ACT is an #Apple front, their lobbyist just asked #Google whether it wasn't worried that 3rd party app stores are dangerous to users and would put a control process in place (like Apple does). 
OK I'm back after the lunch break, and the #Google / #Alphabet compliance workshop is heating up nicely:
They're talking Google Shopping and #selfpreferencing and competitors are accusing Google openly to be like a "dictator" and "blatantly non-compliant" with the #DMA. 
tl;dr wrap-up from my 3rd day of #DMA compliance workshops with #gatekeepers: while #Google / #Alphabet seems to fare slightly better than #Apple in terms of compliance plans (from a digital rights perspective that is, I'm sure price comparison and hotel industries would disagree), there is still some way to go before the proposed changes can be called satisfactory. 
And just to be clear: Google is still a terrible #privacy violator, the DMA will hardly change that.
@ilumium appreciate your write-ups!