Link: https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3mirlbj3vys22

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.

What about anarchyfucks

Is he confusing privacy for security?

To be fair I don't know anyone that has ever used e/OS or considered it to be a serious project

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

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

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

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

Honestly, the fact that it is supported by default on the fairphone was quite appealing to me but this poor opinion from the CEO rubs me the wrong way

Lmao what a toxic piece of shit

Privacy is something everyone deserves, not something only criminals want

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

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

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.

Who? Gaël Duval or GrapheneOS?

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

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

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, officer. Come for a few more kinds of people I don't like. Nothing bad ever happened to the French!

A fine endorsement.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?!

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.

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.

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 the English translation does for me.

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.

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.

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

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.

That would be really cool.

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

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?

You did not need to censor anything this is not Reddit

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.

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.