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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 of maybe in French it doesn’t sound that way, but they English translation does for me.
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.
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.
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.
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 calle 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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?!
deleted by creator
Well, look at the /e/ os. It just confirms the narrative. If you just hate google, you can remove their apps via ADB.
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.
“anyone who wants privacy from their government is a pedophile” is a hell of a stance…
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.
