"Security vs. Interoperability" Arguments: An Analytical Framework

TL;DR

This paper develops an analytical framework to systematically evaluate security concerns raised against interoperability efforts in digital markets, especially within EU antitrust cases.

Contribution

It introduces a taxonomy of security vs. interoperability concerns, an analytical framework for assessment, and a comparative analysis of case studies.

Findings

Identified three categories of SvI concerns: engineering, vetting, hybrid.

Demonstrated the framework's utility through diverse case studies.

Highlighted patterns linking economic incentives, market power, and security.

Abstract

Concerns about big tech's monopoly power have featured prominently in recent media and policy discourse, as regulators across the European Union (EU), the United States (US) and beyond have ramped up efforts to promote healthier market competition. One favored approach is to require certain kinds of interoperation between platforms, to mitigate the current concentration of power in the biggest companies. Unsurprisingly, interoperability initiatives have generally been met with resistance by big tech companies. Perhaps more surprisingly, a significant part of that pushback has been in the name of security -- that is, arguing against interoperation on the basis that it will undermine security. We conduct a systematic examination of "security vs. interoperability" (SvI) discourse in the context of EU antitrust and competition proceedings. Our resulting contributions are threefold. First, we propose a taxonomy of SvI concerns in three categories: engineering, vetting, and hybrid. Second, we present an analytical framework for assessing real-world SvI concerns, and illustrate its utility by analyzing several case studies spanning our three taxonomy categories. Third, we undertake a comparative analysis that highlights key considerations around the interplay of economic incentives, market power, and security across our diverse case study contexts, identifying common patterns in each taxonomy category. Our contributions provide valuable analytical tools for experts and non-experts alike to critically assess SvI discourse in today's fast-paced regulatory landscape.