Gregory's ServerPart 2/3
[00:03:17] Martin Blatter
The directive stipulates that the security level should be maintained. Specifically, I think the directive even mentions end-to-end encryption. But security does not only mean encryption. Ultimately, the weakest link in the chain determines what happens to content and, above all, personal data. I'll call the top dogs these big gatekeepers. They are not really interested in the content and are perhaps even happy not to know it, as this could then lead to further regulatory consequences. For example, content, moderation and stories like that. So if you don't know it, you don't have to moderate it. This metadata is actually sufficient for the expansion of the social graph. In other words, who is communicating with whom, when, where, how the groups are put together, etc. And that is perhaps the exciting information and that is not really covered by the regulation, because encryption alone is not necessarily incredibly relevant.
And if you remember the phrase from the NSA or later CIA chief Hayden, they said We kill people based on metad ata. And government regulation could therefore involuntarily lead to these top dogs receiving additional user metadata. And of all people, the users who have consciously opted for a more data-efficient messenger. And that of course increases the value of the data collection, these top dogs. And I don't think that was in the interest of the regulators. It would backfire on them. I like to say that well-intentioned is not always well done.
[00:05:14] Moderator
What is the situation from your perspective as a provider? Do you see the possibility of complying with these requirements? Or would you say that this is a problem that would completely jeopardise our business model?
[00:05:30] Martin Blatter
That in any case. So the idea of this interoperability, of course. That sounds very appealing at first glance. We all know this situation from the club or school. If you have a WhatsApp group, then you're left out. Especially if you don't trust the WhatsApp provider. And from this point of view, if every messenger should or can talk to every other messenger, then as a user of a data-saving messenger like Threema, you don't just have to trust one provider, but any number of them. And among them will certainly be messengers whose data protection practices are rather questionable.
@tcely
Part 3/3
[00:06:19] Moderator
Well, that's actually a done deal. They have major doubts about it, partly because they see their business model as being somewhat jeopardised. And, of course, the security of communication. Do you think the EU will allow itself to be dissuaded from the plan?
[00:06:34] Martin Blatter
That's difficult to judge. Of course, I don't know the EU's decision-making processes that well. The roadmap for this Digital Market Act, i.e. specifically for this interoperability for messengers, is designed for a longer period of time, starting first in March next year with one-to-one messaging. In other words, what users will then be able to do. Group messaging will follow a year later and then, at some point in 2027, calls and, more specifically, video calls should also be possible. Both one-to-one, i.e. two users with each other or with several users, for example. I don't think they will be dissuaded from this. But it may well be that the whole thing develops into a paper tiger. This means that ultimately none of the small messengers, at least the privacy-conscious, data-saving messengers, will decide to participate in mobility. That's a pretty realistic scenario. And then the regulators might really have to go over the books again.
[00:07:53] Moderator
Or could that possibly mean the end of Threema's service, for example?
[00:08:01] Martin Blatter
I don't think so. Exactly. As I said, if we don't participate here, nothing will change in principle. We have no obligations as a result of this regulation.
[00:08:12] Moderator
The fact is, the EU is now also thinking ahead. It's not just focussing on messengers, but also on all the social networks. Wouldn't that also be an opportunity for smaller alternative platforms? After all, users could then easily connect to much stronger social networks via this platform without having to be in a business relationship with the large platform themselves. platforms, for example with Meta.
[00:08:42] Martin Blatter
I think there are still a lot of legal issues that are still unresolved. For example, if a social network could post on another network, the data would still end up with Meta, even though you have a contract with another provider. And that could be quite exciting from a legal point of view.
The End.
@threemaapp
@tcely
Part 3/3
[00:06:19] Moderator
Well, that's actually a done deal. They have major doubts about it, partly because they see their business model as being somewhat jeopardised. And, of course, the security of communication. Do you think the EU will allow itself to be dissuaded from the plan?
[00:06:34] Martin Blatter
That's difficult to judge. Of course, I don't know the EU's decision-making processes that well. The roadmap for this Digital Market Act, i.e. specifically for this interoperability...