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.

翻译：关于大型科技公司垄断权力的担忧近期在媒体和政策讨论中愈发突出，欧盟、美国及其他地区的监管机构正加大力度推动更健康的市场竞争。一种备受青睐的方法是要求平台间实现某些形式的互操作，以缓解当前集中在巨头企业手中的权力。不出所料，互操作性倡议普遍遭遇大型科技公司的抵制。更令人意外的是，这种抵制中有相当一部分打着安全的旗号——即主张互操作将损害安全。我们在欧盟反垄断与竞争诉讼背景下对"安全vs.互操作性"（SvI）话语进行了系统性考察。由此产生三大贡献：首先，我们提出将SvI关切划分为工程、审核与混合三大类别的分类法；其次，我们构建了评估现实SvI关切的分析框架，并通过覆盖三类分类法的多个案例研究阐明其实用性；最后，我们开展比较分析，揭示不同案例背景下经济激励、市场权力与安全互动的关键考量，识别出各类别中的共同模式。我们的成果为专家及非专业人士提供了批判性评估当今快速演变的监管环境中SvI话语的宝贵分析工具。