> The Bundestag administration actively provides Wire as an alternative to commercial platforms such as WhatsApp or Signal.

Any idea why Signal is deemed a "commercial platform" by DBT administration?

▲

anthonj 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It's owned by an American no-prrofit with a dedicated subsidiary, so still a commercial product and (more relevant) usa-based with all the potential implications. Wire is for profit but german-swiss.

▲

mr_mitm 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wire is also a commercial product though

▲

zarzavat 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a commercial entity that is within EU jurisdiction, whereas Signal is within US jurisdiction. The distinction is important if for example a hostile country were to invade the territory of an EU member state, let's say a large island...

	▲	Markoff 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

andrewinardeer 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What USA based implications are you referring to? It doesn't matter what country they reside in, if a valid court order is produced it must comply.

And my understanding is that there is minimal meta data to hand over as the message contents are unreadable without the keys.

	▲	xethos 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		An American court order, meeting American legal standards, does not necessarily produce results when delivered to a German or Swiss entity.
	▲	anthonj 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The implication that eu is (rightfully) butthurt and don't what to relay on usa if there is the risk of meddling of any kind or blackmailed with denial of service (regardless if it makes sense here or not, this is entirely political). And there is also the darker side of some eu parties pushing for more surveillance, and in that case stuff like signal would be kind of a problem as well.
	▲	ndsipa_pomu 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It doesn't matter what country they reside in, if a valid court order is produced it must comply. A USA court order is not going to get much compliance from a German/Swiss company. > my understanding is that there is minimal meta data to hand over as the message contents are unreadable without the keys. That may well be true at the moment (I believe so, anyhow), but it's entirely possible for the USA administration/security services to force any U.S. company to install backdoors and not be allowed to mention it to anyone.