Interoperability vs. Security: Why not both?

Electronic Frontier Foundation Version 1 original current

Imported from official source

An open internet where people can freely build, share, and remix each other's work is a powerful engine of grassroots innovation we’ve all benefited from. In recent decades, however, corporations have taken control of an increasing share of this work, giving them a greater ability to stifle challengers and limit our choices. When regulators address this by mandating that  tech giants play fair by requiring interoperability, the gatekeepers respond with a tired refrain: Playing fair puts users’ security at risk. Unfortunately for these trillion-dollar companies, this gotcha isn’t the end of the conversation. Regulators can ensure that meaningful choice and security thrive. Lawmakers have been catching up, recognizing that the best way to rein in big tech is to require these oligopolies to open up their platforms to independent developers. As we explained six years ago, mandating interoperability helps prevent the misuse of people’s data and enables more privacy-respecting alternatives. Tech giants, in contrast, have been arguing that our data is safer when they have exclusive control. Tech Giants Claim Interoperability Means Insecurity The European Union’s Digital Markets Ac...

This version

Version
1 of 1
Recorded
October 21, 2026 23:02
Change
Initial
Content hash
924d1eb3b6512427afaf8ba715078b30
All versions
Revision history

Officially records where a publication came from, not whether it is true. Imported records are reproduced from an organization's own official source.