Comment by subscribed
2 days ago
There are devices meeting these basic standards right now, and the entire family of them, no less.
GOS are vocal about safety and security of all the devices, not just seriously insecure Fairphones, and this article is about something different altogether, that's misinformation they've been hit with several times.
Fair criticism is fair, but yours is fabrications.
[flagged]
A problem I see is that GrapheneOS has a history of being extremely blunt about the shortcomings of alternatives, and of course alternatives (and users of alternatives) don't like getting that feeling that maybe they have been compromising on... something.
At least that's how I felt when I starting reading more after a few years of using /e/OS on my Fairphone 3. And the more I read, the more I realised that GrapheneOS was usually technically correct (their communication used to be a different story, but recently I feel like it has become a lot more professional, focusing on the technical side).
Really, the vast majority of technical criticisms I see against GrapheneOS are misinformed. I'm not saying that the commenters purposely say lies. Just that it all is technically non-trivial, and I totally understand that most people don't really understand how the Android security model works, for instance.
All that to say: I don't think that there is hypocrisy on the GrapheneOS side. They are very consistent on what they are trying to do.
Yeah it's hard to argue that their points are technically incorrect, after all this is the mobile ARM ecosystem we're talking about, with buggy ass locked down binary blobs with more security holes than swiss cheese that are never updated, as the industry standard. And in regards to Fairphone, user reviews have generally shown that their disregard for keeping their software updated by far eclipses any gains made by the repairability aspect. And I can sort of respect being brash about pointing the flaws out.
My main source of contention with Graphene is more ideological in the way they've gone about doing something about it: by using the Pixel. To quote that old batman comic meme: "This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it." At the end of the day, Google gets $1k or thereabouts for every GrapheneOS install which they can use to further advance the cause of mass surveillance, as an adware firm they have the most misaligned incentives of any manufacturer in existence. The company that is almost too eager to cave to every whim of the fascist in chief in hopes of it benefiting their bottom line. That's what I see as insanely hypocritical. By being this exclusive, it counts as a complete endorsement.
1 reply →
At the moment there is no other hardware manufacturer making similarly secure android phones.
*NONE*
There is no android hardware coming close. If there is, please name it. As far as I know it's only some unspecified, upcoming Motorola flagships.
If you call the unwilling, pragmatic choice an "intense hypocrisy", it's pretty clear to me you're simply driven by emotions and tribalism, that the facts don't matter.
Are you saying that using Google hardware equals using stock Google os?
You must be a little more.... Coherent with your metaphors :)
> NONE
That's exactly my point. Imagine for a second that there's no Pixel. What would GOS do?
They could either ship nothing at all because suddenly nothing fits their made up standards, or they would have to lower them to fit reality. The standards are there only because the Pixel exists to fit them.
I think it's highly suspicious that they've set their demands up so that only one device fits the bill, if this wasn't FOSS people would be calling up anti-trust and asking how much Google paid them for regulatory capture.
Similarly, if there was a device that's more secure than the Pixel, would GOS support both, or rewise their rules so it only fits whatever they want? I guess we'll see once the Motorola lands.
But no, I'm saying using Google hardware is directly financially supporting the closed ecosystem of corporate control they're trying to fight against. And if we do go down speculation lane, I wouldn't find it impossible for Google to build in their own hardware level backdoors. Given that Snowden is still alive, I suppose it's unlikely, but the conflict of interest is clear as day here.
1 reply →
[flagged]