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.

  • apftwb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Pedophiles use their work emails and gmail. Making a secure phone OS won’t make a difference.

  • Matt@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

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

  • doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

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

  • utopiah@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • rbits@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Just because something does something good doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism.

  • Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    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.

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

  • FEIN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • lennee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Lmao what a toxic piece of shit

    Privacy is something everyone deserves, not something only criminals want

  • blackbrook@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • rbits@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        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.)

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

  • rbits@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

    • rbits@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

  • herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

    • FoundFootFootage78@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.