Comment by strcat

8 days ago

We weren't given a chance to see what was being claimed and properly respond to it. Our response at the end of the article was to this prompt, which was in the first and only email we received, in English:

> I am preparing an article on the use of your secure personal data phone solution by drug traffickers and other criminals. Have you ever been contacted by the police?

The claims in the main story strongly indicate they're not talking about GrapheneOS itself but rather companies selling closed source forks of it with significant modifications. They refer to features which don't exist in GrapheneOS. Supposedly GrapheneOS which is freely available from https://grapheneos.org/install/web and https://grapheneos.org/releases with sources on GitHub is distributed on the "dark web" and promoted via unlisted YouTube videos. They're clearly conflating products which market themselves by saying they're using GrapheneOS with the upstream project those are forked from. These are largely sketchy products and we regularly have to deal with them infringing on our copyright and trademarks.

One of these companies marketing products claiming to use GrapheneOS, ANOM, turned out to be a company run by the FBI as a sting operation which was hiring criminals to sell phones to other criminals. ANOM told people what they were getting was GrapheneOS when it was actually a mix of GrapheneOS and LineageOS code. The FBI was broadly facilitating crime in Europe by providing them devices they considered secure and safe to use while disregarding most of it to avoid exposing their operation. They were also misusing our brand and harming our reputation us through this. A lot of the claimed criminal usage was directly engineered by the FBI. A detailed podcast episode on this:

https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/146/

There's also this second article from the same paper containing the explicit threat referred to in our posts:

https://archive.is/UrlvK

It says that if we don't cooperate, they'll take similar actions against us they did against 2 named secure phone companies. Those actions were taking over their servers and criminal charges. It's clear what they want is a backdoor to have access to devices they're unable to exploit due to the advanced exploit protections. They're threatening that if this is not provided, they'll go after us as they did companies they said were collaborating with criminals. They likely consider providing freely available open source software which anyone can use for any purpose to be collaborating with criminals.

The main result will be OVH losing our business to a Toronto colocation provider for important non-static content (discussion forum, email, Matrix, Mastodon, attestation service), Vultr (American) for our anycast DNS + exotic webserver locations, Netcup (German) and perhaps another 1-2 companies for NA/EU web servers where Vultr is extremely overpriced due to double the costs for the same specs and metered bandwidth (it's great for exotic locations and BGP support for our anycast though).

There's another article here, but the paywall isn't bypassed by archive sites (we've read it though):