Read the whole thread

However, we don't have a "hardened security" approach, we aren't developing a phone for pedo(censored) so they can evade justice.

Years ago as I started research I literally laughed at loud at the thought of buying a google phone to.... Degoogle!

Talk about an instant compromise of values! Haha!

Then I saw the toxicity of the GOS devs & their fanz & that sealed the deal

Best decision ever to run away from that group of nasties

Ahhhhhh, the zen life

Anyone telling you the list isn’t graphene -> ios -> good custom android -> aosp-> google stock -> samsung stock is lying to you.

I thought Samsung stock was better because of Knox et all

Well, that'll be another 100€ December donation to GrapheneOS.

Sadly FUD as ANYTHING that is NOT increasing profit for surveillance capitalism, i.e Google, Meta, etc is a win for privacy!

Of course /e/OS could be better, GrapheneOS could also be better (including on security) but the big picture is that still ANY of those solutions is making surveillance capitalism, the loss of privacy for profit and power, less efficient. That's good for all of us who, being on Lemmy or other federated instance, believe we do benefit from having more privacy, or at least not trading it away.

TL;DR: be inclusive, bring others up, don't be exclusive aiming for perfection none of us can attain.

I'm running e/OS in my old Poco F3 right now.

I switched from LineageOS because I though, e/OS would be easier to ungoogle.

In the end, it just defaults to way more compromises than I would have made on LineageOS.

Over all, it's actually just LineageOS with MicroG preinstalled, a really bad launcher, an ugly 2015-ish iPhone icon theme, and a few mediocre apps preinstallex, that usw these 'Murena' services that claim to be an alternative to Google services, but they are neither more secure/foss nor reliable.

Their appstore is rather Bad. Yes, it essentially combines something like APKMirror and F-Droid in one app, but it requests a Google account to access PlayStore Apps.

Imho, LineageOS with MicroG, no GApps, F-Droid and APKMirror and a few foss apps is the Vetter solution.

I have my sync services selfhosted through a NAS and simply use WebDAV (backups), CardDAV and CalDAV. This was harder to set up in e/OS than in basic LineageOS, because e/OS is trying to push their own Murena services for that. And if I didn't have all of these selfhosted, I'd rather use Proton services instead of Murena.

Over all, really sketchy. It's like a custom Rom that claims privacy but actually just wants you to möge to their own service.

I can see how one can interpret it like that, but it's not how I read what he said. I think the point he's trying to make is that hardened security protects the user from attacks, yes, but their focus is to provide services that can be trusted not to attack the user. He said: "really hardened security stuff that could clearly be useful for executives, in the secret service, or whatever. That's not our goal"

I mean, I use GrapheneOS on my phone, but do I personally need all the hardened security? Not really. It's nice theoretically, but mainly I'm just happy the OS itself isn't spying on me. I'm personally not very worried about an evil maid attack or state level spying.

Someone on Reddit made an interesting comment relevant to this discussion:

https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyFromEU/comments/1rn5qiw/fairphone_grew_83_last_quarter_tried_it_for_a/o94f706/

Take this with a grain of salt: GrapheneOS is always stirring shit with other players in the privacy space and they try to paint them in the worst light possible.

It's a video of him speaking in his own words, not much salt needed.

Lmao e/OS CEO says a thing, someone inevitably in the comments, "How could GrapheneOS do this!"

You did not need to censor anything this is not Reddit

First of all, I didn't censor it, that's a quote from the Bluesky post.

But also, why is everybody so offended by censored words here? I don't get it.

But also, why is everybody so offended by censored words here? I don’t get it.

The biggest reason seems to be that it will evade filters, which people set up very intentionally and specifically to keep these Fedi-spaces a safe place for them mentally.

So, for example, someone comes here to get away from the 'real world' and news and whatnot, may have a filter that blocks anything with the word "Trump", or one I actually see censored a lot more often, "Israel"

Then someone makes a post about "Isr*el is so bad" and it sails right through their filters.

But also, why is everybody so offended by censored words here?

I think because it's a sign how social media corps have trained us to avoid certain words or even create new ones (for example "unalive" instead of "kill").

The term is algospeak, where you change your wording due to online censoring. I fucking hate that corporations have managed to literally change the way we speak.

But it's also great that humans evolve language to keep ahead of algorithms and corporate bullshit.

It shows that people internalize censorship and start doing it unprompted.

The full translation of the clip of Gaël Duval provided by GrapheneOS:

There's the attack surface, on that front we're not security specialists here, so I couldn't answer you precisely, but from the discussions I've had, it seems that everything we do reduces attack surface.

However, we don't have a "hardened security" approach, we aren't developing a phone for pedo(censored) so they can evade justice. So there aren't difficult things to check if the memory is corrupted, really hardened security stuff that could clearly be useful for executives, in the secret service, or whatever.

That's not our goal, our goal is to start from an observation: today our personal data is constantly being plundered and that wouldn't be legal in real life with the mail or the telephone, we want to change that. So we are making you a product that changes that by default for anyone.

As a french speaker, I can attest that the translation is fairly accurate.

While I don't agree with the characterisation Gaël Duval makes here, I believe the statement from GrapheneOS here:

Duval and his organizations have consistently taken a stance against protecting users from exploits. In this video, he once again claims protecting against exploits is for only useful pedophiles and spies.

Is a bit disingenuous. It sounds like they do make some efforts to secure their device, but it's not their main focus. Theirs is to improve privacy first and foremost.

I would take anything GrapheneOS devs says with a grain of salt, as we all know that they have quite an adversarial relationship with... well... everyone. But especially other OS makers.

It sounds like they do make some efforts to secure their device, but it's not their main focus. Theirs is to improve privacy first and foremost.

I don't have any issue with that: different OSes have different priorities and that's okay. However, I feel like he's basically saying that users of hardened secure devices are pedos, and I have a very big issue with that. I don't know if maybe in French it doesn't sound that way, but they English translation does for me.

That's how it sounds. So, I'm a pedophile because I run GrapheneOS on my phone? I guess I better tell my wife, and my kids.

... and my kids

"Hey Kiddos! So I have some good news and some bad news..."

We've known that /e/os is anti security/privacy look at all their attacks on grapheneos

I've not seen this though GrapheneOS has repeatedly belittled /e/os. As others in this thread have noted the propensity to repeatedly attack other projects is the biggest failing of GOS. As a user it does little more than leave me funding PostmarketOS while biding time for a proper linux solution.

GrapheneOS only points out (very bluntly tbf) the fact that /e/os and other "privacy" focused os don't keep up with critical security patches and actually makes users less private and secure due to this. I think saying that GrapheneOS belittled /e/os is a little much considering the amount of missinformation/attacks that people from /e/os and Murena have been doing accross social media. I mean you see it here calling "hardened security approach" is for pedos/criminals very extreme language which does genuine harm to projects like GrapheneOS. Their Unified Attestation project is just a way for them (/e/os, murena etc) to control which apps can run on which device when GrapheneOS supports hardware attestation which would allow (afaik) apps to verify on the hardware level to ensure the security of apps. Read this thread on their mastodon, they routinely have to defend themselves on social media from a mountain of misinformation and disinformation you should read some of the other posts on their mastodon.

Considering I've had my own posts deleted during the last round of admin meltdowns here on the fediverse I have seen all I need to of GOS's leadership antics, thank you very much.

which instances did that?

grapheneos@lemmy.ml
https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/comment/21010858
I spoke out about the persecution complex of the management and got shut down, like-minded sentiment be damned I guess. We can see the sycophancy here also, Stallman save us from such small minds..

the mod's reasoning is sus at best and makes this community feel like it's captured by reactionaries.

I don't think he's actually making the parallelism with pedophiles and security per se, but rather he's making the case that his OS' mission isn't by default focused on that level of security or anonymity, but rather privacy and disengagement from companies who profit from your data being mined.

He mentioned pedophiles, as well as the secret service, right after, as examples of either criminals who need to be obscured from detection (maybe because it's easy for the Epstein class to pop in someone's head, nowadays?) or government agents that need to protect themselves from data breaches, and said his type of OS isn't made with that level of airtight security in mind, which is understandable and reasonable, and something we probably all knew already. It could've just as well been terrorists and investigative journalists mentioned.

One could take his stance and engage in discussion on whether we need that level of security by default as ordinary citizens, or that even without exceptional circumstances, it becomes necessary in an increasingly hypervigilant society/government, but that's a separate discussion.

We should have a little nuance in interpreting speeches like these rather than taking things this literally, especially when it's coming from a direct competitor in the degoogling sphere, who would naturally gain from holding it up in the most unflattering light.

Are you a native french speaker? Maybe you heard it differently from me, but while I am all for nuance, lets not sanewash people and take them at their word.

I use plenty of software where the developers are not primarily focused on security, but his line of reasoning sounds just plain dangerous for an OS developer. Maybe he phrased it bad, but that would be up to him to clarify and we shouldnt do that for him.

It's also up to us to not jump aboard any given claim and be critical of what others are spelling out for us. In any case, the transcripts in both english and french were posted by grapheneOS in the comments as well, so non-native french speakers can draw their own conclusions.

You're right that it's also up to him to clarify his remarks, but I feel like this is a non-issue generously stretched out online that just sows further division that only benefits the big offenders against privacy.

Interesting conversation with GrapheneOS. Didn't know they essentially hate each other. I'm using e/os but just because I cannot run graphene on my device.

GrapheneOS's leadership hates basically any other ROM. If you say something negative about GrapheneOS, he will probably call you out as part of CalyxOS team in a hate raid party, or something of the like.

They make an amazing OS, but you're better off not giving them much attention in their constant drama.

Calling others on their bullshit does not equal hating on them. Why do you think CalyxOS had to 'take a break'? Why do you think that The only thing these 'privacy' focused OSs can do about GrapheneOS is say it's geared towards criminals? They have no other way to try and smear them because they're all garbage in comparison.

Get your shit straight. GrapheneOS is so fucking awesome that they plugged an actual Linux kernel hole within hours of it being found, whereas it took Google weeks, never mind these Murena and Calyx morons.

... bullshit ... criminals ... smear ... garbage ... get your shit straight ... morons.

more expletives, than sentences; this reads like it was written by micay himself. lol

I wouldn't be surprised if there is more that one sockpuppet to be quite honest, they just cannot grow tf up.

i'm inclined to believe that the continuous barrage of hate lobbied their way makes them reactionary because they lack the discipline that typifies rightist beliefts; they could accomplish A LOT MORE if they copied pages from the leftist playbooks where public engagement is concerned.

You're finally getting it. Good.

For context, for those in the anglosphere, Graphene OS had some troubles in France because the government portrayed the users of the OS as majority criminals, like narcos and including pedos. They left the French market.

Occam's razor would lead one to believe Gael is not talking to users but to shareholders and the government, where he mentions pedos, which is the soup du jour to go after privacy.

Now, why is this being spread by GOS without context? Easy, they just entered a deal with Motorola, and creating an environment where people hate the competition is a very profitable endeavour for GOS. Finally, Mikay should get help, he's impossibly technically endowed but also facing some demons that push GOS into unsavoury practices.

Finally, Motorola produces a panoply of devices for LEA, if you think a for profit company will not leverage their deal with GOS to sell a bypass device to law enforcement agencies and have the monopoly on that market you are out of your goddamn mind. The truth is /e/ doesn't purport to sell a private OS, they sell an OS with less tracking. Graphene advertises a fully "private" OS but then enters a deal with one of biggest cop suppliers in the world and not a word on how that compromises their promise of security for users.

There's only one way to be really safe, a 0 trust model where you don't use your phone as a reliable communicator.

Finally, Motorola produces a panoply of devices for LEA, if you think a for profit company will not leverage their deal with GOS to sell a bypass device to law enforcement agencies and have the monopoly on that market you are out of your goddamn mind.

You realise that Motorola Solutions (that make stuff for law enforcement agencies) and Motorola Mobility (that make phones) are two completely seperate companies?

Motorola Mobility is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lenovo.

They have nothing to do with eachother beyond just the brand. Motorola Mobility dont even own the rights to the name or logo. They have to license the brand from Motorola Solutions.

You realise that Motorola Solutions (that make stuff for law enforcement agencies) and Motorola Mobility (that make phones) are two completely seperate companies?

I didn't. Good catch. The original point stands though, given Lenovo's history, business practices and their collaboration with LEA, it's just the holding company that changes.

that push GOS into unsavoury practices.

Can you elaborate on this?

i. e.

Deal with Motorola to make bank before "they" get to him.

Desperate attempts at portraying himself as victim of persecution.

FUD on other AOSP projects.

Please provide the video with the question included. This looks cut to fit the anti murena narrative that GrapheneOS has been screaming about for years. It's the same tactic Republicans use against others: cutting only a bit that sounds bad when taken out of context.

"anyone who wants privacy from their government is a pedophile" is a hell of a stance...

"Why did you lock your doors, what did you steal?"

Honestly by now it's becoming reasonable to assume "projection" as a baseline, to then change based on evidence, when someone has a take like this guy's.

I don't mean the political tactic, just the garden-variety kind of projection. "Probably ~everyone thinks the way I do, and boy, we better not give everyone the tools to act on that..."

Deeply wrong about how most folks think, because of how they themselves do, and believing they're therefore helping. Likewise a self-admission, because they don't realize they're admitting anything.

Maybe not the case with this guy, I'm not gonna dive in.

But I do sincerely believe that's a somewhat charitable take toward anyone making a claim like this today. Charitable in the sense of acknowledging a misunderstanding and desire to help.

The less charitable one being - just obviously complicit. Fuck this noise.

the privatized western govts & their tech boys literally are the infrastructure of the global pedos it's asinine & dangerous to tell people to ignore that!

The stereotype of pedophiles in cop shows is that they use desktop computers anyway, not phones. Don't know how true to reality that is though.

I think it's fair they support way more phones than GrapheneOS, even if the security is way worse. But it's a whole other thing to call people who want secure phones pedophiles.

Agree with your outlook, but I think it's not too farfetched to give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker here and establish that pedophiles were used as an example (of people whose survival depends on their data not being breached), rather than a direct comparison. And he goes on to name being an executive to the secret services as another example (again, of people to whom hardened security of data is an imperative), but we're not saying he thinks secure phones are just for people in secret services, are we?

He's just saying, albeit rather clumsily, that their goal is simply not that level of hardened security, but rather privacy from data miners.

I am skeptical how worthwile it is to use /e/os over OEM Android at this point

You keep access to non-verified apps no matter what Google wants since it uses microG.

It's openness vs security.

Well, you get a superiour privacy and security by just debloating a device via ADB.

I think both approaches are too extreme. Supporting every device leads to poor security, poor stability, and therefore a poor user experience, but only supporting just Google devices (while there is a good reason for that) is a step too far for most people.

If I were in the position of e/os I'd just support probably three manufacturers. Going through the major ones that I know of: Motorola and Google are obvious picks. Next would need to be something cheap and popular. Samsung is way out of the question. Xiaomi and Vivo I've never seen their phones mentioned outside of China (which is a country that generally doesn't have the same privacy considerations as people in the west do). That leaves Oneplus and Tecno Mobile for the third model.

CalyxOS (when it existed) supported Fairphone, Motorola (some) and Pixel.

honestly, given Graphene's social media record, I'd assume they're translating the video in the least generous way possible

Honestly I think it's a neutral translation, he really poorly chose his words.

But is there any other choice possible if GrapheneOS isn't supported on your device? Graphene seams to say that AndroidOS is better?!

Well, look at the /e/ os. It just confirms the narrative. If you just hate google, you can remove their apps via ADB.

I have a huge problem with GrapheneOS: they rely too much on Google hardware. That is why I never used Graphene and probably never will.

Well, wait for motorola's graphene compatible phones to pop up ig.

Just wondering, do you have a problem in the sense that you don't want to support Google or more that you're worried the actual hardware is not safe or trustworthy?

Google is the exact opposite of privacy and security.

I find it very dishonest that GrapheneOS was advertising itself as the secure option while tying itself so closely to Google.

The Pixel phones were the only devices with secure enough hardware to make GrapheneOS viable, that's why they developed it for them.

It wasn't because of some deal with google or anything like that.

Hardware security guarantees are irrelevant for most people, including myself. A very small segment of the popularion needs them.

What matters infinitely more is who has access to your data. And Google is one of the worst offenders.

I don't really see the issue. So you don't really care about robust and trustworthy hardware. That I get to some extent considering you're more worried about your data itself. But if you're flashing your device with GOS, there is no data being shared to Google unless you specifically want to use Google Play Services or the Play Store. Both of which don't come pre-installed

Edit: I added the if

Robust and trustworthy hardware does not matter if the apps you need for daily life (like banking or public transportation) are so integrated with Google's ecosystem that they leak everything.

Breaking Google's hold over Android is the most important security topic of all time. Everything else is secondary. GrapheneOS is not real security.

In that case another degoogled ROM sounds more like what you're after?

Graphenes thing is hardware security.

Buying a phone from Google (HTC really) does not give Google access to your data.

There are no Google services installed by Graphene, you have the option of running Google services if you choose, but even if you choose to do so they are kept in a sandbox and not given privileged information on the system.

There are no Google services installed by Graphene, you have the option of running Google services if you choose, but even if you choose to do so they are kept in a sandbox and not given privileged information on the system.

Using Google hardware results in financial gain for Google, which is one of the worst companies out there for privacy and security. I do not like that GrapheneOS is working to propagate Google's monopoly.

It only works on Pixel phones because they are the only phones on the market that meet the security requirments.

Thats why for the future Motorola phones, Motorola will have to design a new phone that will meet those requirements. They can't just put Graphene OS on an existing Motorola model.

https://lemmy.ml/post/45526027/24995083

If you don't care about hardware security then don't use Graphene OS, it's not made for you. Its made for people who do care.

As for Google harvesting data, Graphene has all of that stripped out by default. It doesnt even have Google Play Services, you need to install it seperately if you want to use it.

Kind of shameful of /e/ to blatantly disregard user privacy like that. Is Graphene our last stand against Orwellian surveillance?

i honestly dont care much about privacy in the sense that i dont rlly need it to be provided by an OS, just give me max freedom and let me handle privacy myself. That being said I am on grapheneOS atm but still hoping for librephone to enable me to have an arch linux like phone experience that i can customize to hell

That would be really cool.

Lmao what a toxic piece of shit

Privacy is something everyone deserves, not something only criminals want

Please provide the video with the question included. This looks cut to fit the anti murena narrative that GrapheneOS has been screaming about for years. It's the same tactic Republicans use against others: cutting only a bit that sounds bad when taken out of context.

I can't believes he's intentionally anti-privacy. Occam's razor suggests he's instead a fucking idiot.

Yeah maybe. But whether it's intentional or not, I would not want to use /e/os.

But also, from the linked thread:

Murena is a for-profit company owned by shareholders including Gaël Duval. /e/ has a non-profit organization which is also led by Gaël Duval. /e/ includes paid services from Murena. /e/ very clearly exists to build products for Murena to sell in order to enrich the shareholders.

Despite being done for profit, /e/ receives millions of euros in funding from the EU on an ongoing basis. /e/ and Murena use extraordinarily inaccurate marketing to not only promote their products/services but also to mislead people about GrapheneOS and scare them away from it.

From @grapheneos.org

Graphene made an OS only for Google phones. I can see what they mean here, but not sure they have room to talk regardless of the security circumstances.

It is shitty if there was a smear campaign against them though.

Oh agreed. I wouldn't want to install an OS from a fucking idiot either.

(And I take your point that said idiot may also be a dishonest slime ball.)

Another quote from the thread

Their marketing heavily focuses on avoiding Google and gives the impression they believe privacy means avoiding one company. Meanwhile, they add a bunch of Google services not present in the Android Open Source Project and give extensive privileged access to Google apps/services.

From @grapheneos.org

What priveledged access? I only found one call home from MicroG, and it was easily disabled.

Recently, France's national law enforcement began fearmongering about GrapheneOS and smearing it with inaccurate claims. France's corporate and state media heavily participated. Many articles and also radio/television coverage misrepresented GrapheneOS as being for criminals.

From @grapheneos.org

It was already debunked. A single french tabloid (not true journal) featured why graphene was used by criminals. It's not the government that was specifically targetting it by all means it had.

A fine endorsement.

It fits into the whole philosophy. There are several posts ( Initial Kuketz, discussion on Kuketz critique, reminder/restart discussion, criticism on usage of OpenAI in /e/ and poor communication, same questions again with no or wrong answers) criticising /e/ for heavily ignoring privacy and security flaws and only one response post on this Duvals answer on OpenAI usage in which they clarify to see 'emotional' reactions and look for alternatives while still finding it acceptable and criticism is 'FUD' and 'hurt of reputation' instead of valid concern.

Additionaly the points postet by Kuketz are not addressed since today. Updates are a bit faster but still with weeks delay and still not including several parts of security updates (instead it's the bare minimum).

I looked for several posts on social media and Duval always ignores the points and yells that all the people are only up to harass him. He also uses false arguments to convince (probably) himself of this ridiculous behaviour.

I started using /e/ in summer 2022 and was positive and hopeful because of the idea (long updates, privacy in mind, degoogled). But over the years learning that nearly all internal community and external expert criticism was ignored or marked as irrelevant or harassment when it's not, my opinion changed and I'm no longer willing to talk or write about /e/ diplomatically as it is inappropriate.

Its a shitty thing to say.

I do use /e/os because I fundamentally object to giving money go google to not use android. It seems like a false economy.

When I first moved away from android I had a pixel but it was not supported by graphene as it was out of security updates from android. So I went for a fairphone so I had a phone that was supported for 10 years. Stopping security updates for a working phone to force me to give money money to google while contriting to e-waste and planned obsolescence fucked me off.

I'm looking forward to seeing the output of the graphene/Motorola project as I do agree with the approach to security.

First they came for people I don't like, I assume, and I said hell yeah, there's no way that will ever be me. Over here, office. Come for a few more kinds of people I don't like. Nothing bad ever happened to the French!

Yeah, no shit. Look at their OS and online services.

Is he confusing privacy for security?

They're two sides of the same coin. Can't have privacy without security and can't have security without privacy.

Looking at the post though he's specifically talking about advanced security as a means of preserving privacy, security you'd need if (based on his model) targeted by a government (whether foreign or your local police forensics team). I don't think his model is correct though because while extra hardened security is useful to protect privacy in such an instance, it's also just best practice because it's better to have too much security than not enough, just to keep your bank account secure at least.

They're two sides of the same coin. Can't have privacy without security and can't have security without privacy.

Hmmm... I half agree with what you said. The corner stone of most security is an element of initial trust.

With SSL, we're trusting that the certificate authority is valid.

With tools like GPG, I (as the sender) are trusting that the key I'm using to sign a message is really yours.

With Android we (the users) and the application developers are trusting Google (hence why "sideloading" is now "bad", because Google says it is).

I absolutely agree that privacy cannot exist without security. But, your privacy is dependent on who your security model trusts.

I don't trust Google with my privacy (hence, I degoogle) , but my bank app doesn't trust my security (hence, the app can only be installed via Google Play).

So, privacy is dependent on security, but security is built on trust.

Who? Gaël Duval or GrapheneOS?

midwest.social

Rules

  1. No porn.
  2. No bigotry, hate speech.
  3. No ads / spamming.
  4. No conspiracies / QAnon / antivaxx sentiment
  5. No zionists
  6. No fascists

Chat Room

Matrix chat room: https://matrix.to/#/#midwestsociallemmy:matrix.org

Communities

Communities from our friends:

Donations

LiberaPay link: https://liberapay.com/seahorse