Cops say criminals use a Google Pixel with GrapheneOS – I say that's freedom

https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pixel-3575477/

by pabs3 • 12 months ago

639 412 12 months ago

johnisgood31• 12 months ago

I cannot say I am surprised. You care about your privacy -> you are a criminal. "If you are not a criminal, you have nothing to hide.". sighs.

I wish people realized that privacy and civil liberties exist regardless of guilt. Rights like freedom of speech, due process, and privacy aren't just for people doing something wrong. They're foundational protections that exist to prevent abuse (by cops, too).

zeta0134• 12 months ago

I maintain that if the NSA ever really needs to know something, if I somehow possess critical knowledge in a legitimate matter of national security, they are welcome to visit. (They'll have to settle for coffee, I'm not much of a tea drinker.) In this way, I really do have nothing to hide. But I do insist on knowing about it in the moment.

Outside of that very narrow context, they may kindly deal with my communications being secured by default, because if there is a path they can use to decrypt my data, the criminals can also find, exploit, and use that same path. Rather easily, as it turns out. (See: various data breaches, password leaks, company after company getting caught with unsecured S3 buckets containing encryption keys, etc etc.) It's not the law I'm hiding from, but those individuals who would steal every one of my digital assets given the opportunity.

In the specific context of Android, the thing I'm trying to dodge isn't even legal snooping or criminal activity, but specifically marketing. Google is terribly interested in my browsing habits, and so having my smartphone not run their services at all is an excellent way to reduce that flow of information from my device to a third party that I don't particularly trust.

BLKNSLVR2• 12 months ago

Don't forget supply chain attacks opening doors and windows all over the shop.

soulofmischief• 12 months ago

Not just criminals. Your own government can be co-opted and suddenly things like IRS records for honest taxpayers become weaponized deportation lists.

simpaticoder• 12 months ago

Avoiding marketing surveillance is both reasonable and increasingly sought after; consider how many mainstream services now offer paid options just to reduce data collection by advertisers.

Modern surveillance states operate on the premise that every individual, out of billions worldwide, could become a potential threat. To manage this, governments have developed and deployed mass surveillance technologies that far exceed the scope of traditional law enforcement. This environment results in routine circumvention—both legal and extra-legal—of civil liberties and privacy protections, such as the 4th amendment, in the name of national security.

We saw this play out dramatically with the Snowden revelations, which exposed systemic, warrantless collection of communications by agencies such as the NSA. Surveillance is not conducted only for clear national emergencies. It is often routine, preemptive, and opportunistic—and the scale is massive, not targeted only at 'bad actors'.

This reality creates a profound power imbalance. Those who control surveillance infrastructure possess the ability—and in some cases, the legal clearance—to act against individuals or groups for reasons ranging from strategic interests to petty personal motives. There have been numerous documented cases of abuse of surveillance powers by insiders seeking to settle personal scores and, internationally, governments using this capability to quash dissent (for example, China’s censorship and criminalization of government criticism)

Once the technology and precedent for ubiquitous surveillance are in place, the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate use blurs dangerously. The potential for abuse is inherent, especially when oversight is weak or accountability is lacking, which is everywhere.

While companies like Google pose significant privacy concerns and “opting out” of their ecosystems is prudent for reducing commercial data exploitation, the larger threat comes from the normalization of universal, warrantless surveillance by state actors.

kristianc• 12 months ago

One of life's bizarre contradictions that it's largely down to Google that some of the most egregious and shady third party techniques for tracking and fingerprinting devices that dominated the 2010s no longer work.

gosub100• 12 months ago

I think what this is really about is the ability to manipulate elections. Panopticon surveillance means it will inevitably dig up dirt on a presidential or other candidate somewhere down the line. Then once they have a shot at winning, pull them aside and say "do what we say and you can maybe win, or we can force your loss now when the story breaks about how you used the n word once in 8th grade"

osigurdson• 12 months ago

[flagged]

bigstrat2003• 12 months ago

The course you suggest would itself damage the social fabric of democracy. Not really a good idea, though it might be cathartic.

lo_zamoyski3• 12 months ago

It's not a specifically "democratic" thing. It's a moral question, and good monarchies that are grounded in a strong moral tradition and a respect for subsidiarity can be much better at resisting the ebb and flow of mass sentiment manipulated by the media. The war on terror showed us how easily fear can be deployed to get the masses to hurt themselves, and revolutions show how envy and grievance can be deployed in a similar fashion.

dang2• 12 months ago

Please don't do tropes like this here. You can make your substantive points without that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lo_zamoyski3• 12 months ago

The idea that privacy is only for those doing something evil is so brain damaged, I cannot understand how anyone took that seriously.

No, privacy is for protecting good things from evil people. And frankly, it's more than that. Privacy is necessary even when no evil intent exists in either the observer or the observed. It is necessary for various relationships to flourish and for human beings to flourish. It isn't good for your neighbors to watch you making love with your wife, or for you to watch them doing so. Social boundaries are important. Failing to respect them is to claim an authority you do not have.

It's similar to the principle of subsidiarity: you want the right people involved in the right things at the right times. Removing privacy smushes everything together, and I claim that this flattening effect is one of the reasons for the mental illness that's catalyzed by social media.

FergusArgyll• 12 months ago

If I am not a criminal you should not need to tap my phone

4bpp• 12 months ago

I would go further and say that even if these things are for criminals, that is okay; and allowing some amount of criminal activity is necessitated by the basic humility of conceding that we might not have figured out the best set of rules for humanity to live under.

It might be appealing to fantasise about catching all the criminals and stopping all their dastardly deeds, but where would we be now if our governments had this capability 30 years ago? ...90? ...270? Would we be happier today if the last 1000 years had passed completely free of theft, murder, pederasty, and also free of blasphemy, heresy and challenges to the divine right of kings? Today, we are grateful for the actions of many a disgusting criminal that would have been condemned by any respectable and well-adjusted member of society (including you, had you lived then) at the time. Who knows which ones of today's criminals we will be thanking 30 years into the future?

FollowingTheDao3• 12 months ago

This is just a continuation of “well a lot of people who commit crimes have dark skin, so let’s profile all people with dark skin.”

But in reality, I think this is a scare piece meant to drive people away from using graphing OS.

sfRattan5• 12 months ago

This is just a continuation of “well a lot of people who commit crimes have dark skin, so let’s profile all people with dark skin.”

You aren't born with a GrapheneOS phone and you can't trivially discard or swap your skin color. Born immutable characteristics of humans are a different moral category entirely, even if the statistical inferences are superficially similar to this case... And that's debatable.

I use GrapheneOS, and I think police profiling people based on phone model is bad. But government profiling based on skin color or other effectively immutable, born traits for enforcement of law or policy is so much worse.

underlipton2• 12 months ago

Americans (at least) approach many dynamics with the same zeal (and irrationality) as they do racial issues. Think about the "green iMessage bubble" controversy. Think about sports fandom. It's not that those situations are comparable in their seriousness, but people do use dumb things as alarmingly inappropriate heuristics for how to treat others. They project unrelated behaviors onto things that apparently rise to the level of minor identity signifiers, and then people get genuinely hurt - or, speaking more directly to HNer interests, products fail because markets go underserved as second-class customers (waves at Meerkat).

FollowingTheDao3• 12 months ago

I don’t see how you could think I disagree with that. As I said, it’s a continuation like an extension like something connected to, but not the same as.

canadiantim• 12 months ago

I get the feeling this is likely a better setup than the linux phones

pabs3• 12 months ago

GrapheneOS is based on the Linux kernel just like Android.

BigSquelch• 12 months ago

It's an android fork.

carbon3489• 12 months ago

Yeah. They have a duress password feature which cleans up the device. Now.. if only you can use it like a linux computer and be able to make full system backups, it would be a lot easier to use that feature. The lack of proper backup facilities make it untenable for holding any critical data.

fsflover• 12 months ago

It depends on your goals and threat model. If you consider dependence on Google hardware as a threat, it's not better.

Twey• 12 months ago

I tried to read this article on digital privacy but after five minutes spent unticking boxes allowing my usage data to be sent to an augean list of data collectors I gave up and left.

fmsf• 12 months ago

When this happens I disable JS for the website permanently and reload, sometimes it is not live loaded and the article is readable.

kstrauser2• 12 months ago

Bless the hearts of webmasters who allow reader mode to function normally.

gruez2• 12 months ago

Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

nilamo• 12 months ago

An article being inaccessible or illegible counts as tangential?

viridian• 12 months ago

The hypocrisy in the context of the content of the article is, in its self, interesting. It's not tangential by any means.

dmix3• 12 months ago

Those are just placebo buttons.

natch2• 12 months ago

This trope of "I have nothing to hide" is really tired.

People, it's fine to have things to hide. You can write a blog post and admit you have things to hide. Everyone has things to hide.

For one thing, you can care about hiding the private information that friends have shared with you. Nobody should assume that all their friends and contacts will be super happy about having some stranger at a border paw through their private emails, chats, and photos. Yes, you do have things to hide. It's called basic human privacy.

Please stop saying "I have nothing to hide" unless you're some sort of sociopath who is willing to give up the private addresses, emails, phone numbers, and details of all your friends, family members, and contacts.

bilekas2• 12 months ago

You're taking it too literally, it's to signify, you're not doing anything illegal, you're not doing something you WANT to hide from law enforcement.

Nothing to do with your private pictures or shopping habits. Those are things you want to keep private.

Hiding and Privacy are not the same.

stavros4• 12 months ago

He isn't. It's literally used in bad faith in its literal sense ("if you have nothing to hide, why can't I see your phone?"). Of course, the same argument would never be accepted by the very law enforcement officer who's making it.

The response to that is, yes, I do have things to hide, none of your business.

Atreiden• 12 months ago

you're not doing something you WANT to hide from law enforcement.

Why should law enforcement have the privilege to know arbitrary information, especially deeply personal information, about law-abiding individuals?

It is a core requirement of democracy to be able to conceal information from the arm of the state. Political retribution and targeting of ones opponents is not just hypothetical, it's happening now, in America, right now.

Why should law enforcement get to search my phone to find out that I'm critical of the administration? This is information about me that is completely allowed under law, but can be used to discriminate against me.

The definition of legal also changes over time. Giving someone an Uber ride in Texas to an out-of-state abortion center is now a crime. Definitely wouldn't want information on my Uber ride history to be freely available to Texas police. Even if I've never given such a ride, my entire ride history, and possibly my life as a whole, is now subject to deep, targeted scrutiny. Facts would not protect me here, as even if I have done nothing wrong my life could be irrevocably altered. Corruption exists. People make mistakes. Sometimes they have hidden agendas that supersede our shared values of common decency.

jmuguy• 12 months ago

I agree, its funny to see the trope from someone advocating GrapheneOS. Like its pretty typical to see from regular internet users who seemingly stopped caring a long time ago that FAANG has essentially their entire life in various databases. We all have private lives, or at least we should, that's just a normal part of being a human.

lisbbb5• 12 months ago

Plus, I really am working to bring down big government and have been for my entire existence.

HeartStrings• 12 months ago

Only absolute normie losers have “nothing to hide”. Like, how boring do you have to be

Tyyps• 12 months ago

The anti-privacy movement in Europe is really concerning. In particular as general population don't really care about it, we are going toward some major shifts. I'm wondering though how this radical turn was initiated and if some lobbies are pulling the strings behind the scene...

0points5• 12 months ago

In particular as general population don't really care about it
if some lobbies are pulling the strings

Sure looks like it. Many people don't understand the consequences of the ChatControl proposition (backdoors for governments into all messaging apps) [1].

Politicians insists it is only about protecting kids from predators online, but see for example Sweden:

* Police and secret police will have this access for swedish citizens.

* Secret police have an agreement with NSA about data sharing (see Snowden).

* NSA will end up storing all my DM:s.

* Another country also have an agreement with NSA about data sharing.

* This other country will find out about my sexual orientation or political beliefs the moment I board a plane to their country.

All of this will be outside of control from my country or the laws of my country (Sweden), that is supposed to protect my free speech [2] and anti discrimination laws [3].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Comb...

2: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...

3: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...

F*k Ylva Johansson:

Research by several newspapers led to allegations of questionable connections between Johansson and her staff and companies that would benefit financially from her proposal, including Thorn and WeProtect.
Johansson rejected the accusations as being untrue, true but not illegal and as not even being accusations.
Her claim to have given data protection organizations the same access as to the backers of her proposal was rejected as untrue by several organizations and members of the EU parliament. Johansson reacted to growing rejection of her proposal by ordering commercial advertisement on Twitter paid for with EU funds. The advertisement was criticized as being misleading and illegal according to the EU's rules for targeted advertisement. [4]

4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson#Surveillance_of...

edg50002• 12 months ago

Agreed. Although to be the devil's advocate for a moment: Governments can currently easily tap email, and phone tapping is more feasible at scale due to machine transcription. So the apps gave use a temporary safe haven, which may get compromised by Chat Control. And before email we had mail, handled directly by the government, although reading mail is more difficult without leaving traces.

jajko• 12 months ago

One can't rely on some sort of 'decency' of a given country and hope for the best, that ship has long sailed.

You mention Sweden, I can easily also name Switzerland, the land of generally very decent, moral and polite people. Yet sometimes curtains falls off a bit and one can see how various police departments will do everything possible to track and follow people. Police are generally very nice but I've also seen some unprovoked brutality and generally less-than-stellar behavior by various authorities that should know and do better.

Protect what you can, while you can. No state is your friend, its not normally an outright enemy but rather a party focused on its own interests, your rights or needs be damned.

johnisgood31• 12 months ago

This other country will find out about my sexual orientation or political beliefs the moment I board a plane to their country.

That is literally going to put people's lives at risk. Crazy.

PeppySteppy• 12 months ago

You are misleading by using "secret police" when what you are are looking for is the "security police".

Secret police definition [1]

Secret police (or political police) are police, intelligence, or security agencies that engage in covert operations against a government's political, ideological, or social opponents and dissidents. Secret police organizations are characteristic of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Security police definition [2]

In some countries, security police is the name given to the secret security and intelligence services charged with protecting the state at the highest level, including responsibilities such as personal protection of the head of state, counter-espionage, and anti-terrorism.

Specific example for Swedish 'Security Police'.[3] if you look up any EU agency with similar roles it will be found that they are all security, not secret.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_police

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Security_Service

rdm_blackhole4• 12 months ago

Of course lobbies are pulling the strings. That is a given.

But the more nefarious issue is that countries that use to uphold human rights and the rights to privacy for their citizens up until 10 to 15 years ago have made a complete U-turn.

And before someone says that this is due to the far-right getting into power, this has really nothing to do with it.

It simply is blatant attempt at muzzling the population. The worst part is that you still have European governments who feel the need to give lessons of democracy to China et al.

I could see how Hungary would want to get this passed because they are well on their way to authoritarianism but this proposal coming from the EU who is supposedly politically in the center, that makes zero sense.

graemep7• 12 months ago

The worst part is that you still have European governments who feel the need to give lessons of democracy to China et al.

They need to highlight that we are nothing like as bad a China. We look good in comparison.

this proposal coming from the EU who is supposedly politically in the center

Is it? Its the only country in the world with a constitutional commitment to privatisation (its in the treaties, which are the constitution, and came close to being called a constitution).

dobremeno4• 12 months ago

Not just in Europe, in the US too - Roman Storm is on trial as of last week for building a privacy tool that ended up getting used by criminals.

Not much good coverage on it out there apart from the great work by The Rage journalists.

buuuuutee• 12 months ago

Roman Storm helped North Korea launder billions. That’s a bit different than average person just wanting a phone detached from the hivemind.

omdv• 12 months ago

will save a google search for some: - “privacy tool” == cryptocurrency mixer - “ended up getting used by criminals” == claimed to help launder $1b

Let’s just say it is in a different category than Alexandra Elbakyan.

rdm_blackhole4• 12 months ago

Also to add to this discussion, to me, it makes zero sense that you would deploy such a system that could be weaponized by a rogue government to hunt down political opponents.

One could argue that they may very well think that this sort of thing could never happen, that the center will always prevail etc... but then again I remember seeing this video compilation of a lot of very confident people in the US saying that Trump would never be president a few months before the 2016 election, let alone be elected for a second term.

So that makes me think, how can they so confident that "the good guys" will always be in charge?

Because from where I am standing there is a massive chance that Reform will win in the UK and that the National Rally will win in France in 2027.

Nobody can say that they did not know.

Ray20• 12 months ago

how can they so confident that "the good guys" will always be in charge?

They implement such systems precisely to always be in charge.

heavyset_go4• 12 months ago

They don't care, what they're absolutely terrified is another Arab Spring happening at home.

The bet is that no matter who is in power, the ruling classes won't find themselves under the boot, which is a pretty good bet to make. Beats a revolution, in their eyes.

BLKNSLVR2• 12 months ago

I installed GrapheneOS just recently and I'm in the process of migrating all my various apps to it.

I like my privacy and I'm also incredibly boring if anyone cares to track my interests and activities. I choose privacy to save the authorities wasting any more of their precious time and resources on little ol' me. And to minimise the value any vampiric tech company may be able to squeeze out of me.

In my limited, but specific, experience, the police will latch on to anything that makes an individual stand out from the vanilla drones as "evidence enough". So be warned. If you're feeling rebellious though, GrapheneOS will scratch a certain itch.

teroshan• 12 months ago

You also do it to protect your friend and family, by for example sandboxing your contacts to prevent them from being shared with the messaging app you need to use to keep in touch with a specific group.

tantalor• 12 months ago

If you outlaw privacy-focused operating systems then only outlaws will use privacy-focused operating systems.

mtlmtlmtlmtl• 12 months ago

Not sure why this is downvoted, it's just factually true.

Police and politicians talking about outlawing things that help criminals as though it will somehow affect the criminals, will never cease to amaze and amuse me. It's such an elementary error of logic.

The fact is that in a reasonably free society it's quite feasible to get away with lots of crime, if you're smart enough. There is no stopping this. Especially if it's a crime which doesn't leave a whole lot behind in terms of physical evidence. Downloading an OS is one such thing. Sure, if you seize my phone, you could prove it runs Graphene. But in a free society, you need probable cause for that, sorry. And if I am some major criminal, and Graphene stops my criminal enterprise from being proven, in a free society that's always preferable to getting busted, because the punishment for using graphene is gonna be meaningless compared to the punishment I'm avoiding by using it. Because a free society includes a protection against disproportionate punishments for minor crimes. Sure I'll pay your $500 fine to avoid 20 years in prison. Cost of doing business.

Once you realise this, you realise the only way to tackle crime is by legalising as many of them as possible, as long as they're not actively and unambiguously violating people's rights. Murder and other violent acts, obviously stay illegal. Drugs, prostitution etc? Legalise them. That's most of the crime right there, because these classes of crime actually provide something that's in wide popular demand. Demand + black market pricing + lack of taxes means lots of money, and money means power to create strong criminal organisations that can do whatever they want with impunity, including influencing politics. With all that out the window, all you have left is a bunch of individuals going at it alone; murdering psychopaths, desperate poor people, the mentally ill, crimes of passion, sex crimes, etc. And you just freed up a ton of societal resources to channel into those vestiges, both via targeted, intelligent policing and broader societal reforms that target the sociological processes that cause these kinds of crime(like wealth inequality, to name one).

Instead, what we get is a never ending arms race towards a totalitarian society. Oh well, see you after the next revolution, I guess.

lisbbb5• 12 months ago

Legalizing drugs had a pretty bad outcome for Portland, which is why they re-criminalized some drugs.

Prostitution leads to trafficking, a word I absolutely despise, particularly when it is used as a past-tense verb: "trafficked." Ugh! What poorly educated government hacks do to our language should be criminal! Regardless, human trafficking is terrible and if that part could be fixed, then maybe prostitution wouldn't be so horrible, but it is because it is pretty much never a voluntary situation for the women, but always some kind of coercion.

mrbluecoat• 12 months ago

Proudly reading this on a Google Pixel 8 with GrapheneOS

stavros4• 12 months ago

Does Google Pay work? Paying with my phone is just too convenient.

leumon• 12 months ago

No, but curve pay or paypal pay work (or any other app not relying on google pay)

sksrbWgbfK• 12 months ago

No. It's the only feature that will never work sadly. But everything else is OK.

npteljes2• 12 months ago

It looks like it doesn't. You might find alternative solutions like this user here*, but there is no guarantee any of it to work indefinitely on GrapheneOS. It's essentially a modified aftermarket firmware, and so, many security related features don't work out of the box, for example, the SafetyNet that many banking apps need.

*: https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1jujvee/finally...

doublerabbit3• 12 months ago

I'm unsure how paying with your phone is any more convenient. Sure the wallet requires you to open your wallet, but is that too much effort? I'd rather just pay in cash.

Pocket > Phone > Double Tap pay button -> Tap

Pocket > Open Wallet > Take card out -> Tap

I suppose it's may be more convenient carrying just your phone and not your wallet but I prefer both. Or does America not have tappable Chip&Pin yet?

Grimblewald• 12 months ago

no, nfc payments don’t work on grapheneos. but honestly, the more interesting question is why you'd even want that.

there’s something deeply ironic about trying to claw back privacy while using hardware from the single most invasive company on the planet. yeah, graphene does a solid job locking down user space, but that’s just the stuff you’re allowed to see. underneath? you’ve got a modem running its own proprietary os, full access to memory, fully closed, fully unauditable, even by the graphene devs. no one outside google has eyes on it. not really.

and you gotta ask, why is that? why’s it closed when we all agree open source is the safest model? "security through obscurity" is bullshit, so what’s being hidden? the only answer that makes any sense is that it’s doing things that aren’t meant to be known.

so yeah, you can harden your userland all day long, strip out google play, sandbox everything to hell, but if the lower layers are compromised, it doesn’t mean much. if “they” want in, they’re in. the whole stack is built to serve someone else. and it probably isn’t you.

i know it sounds paranoid, borderline delusional, but the more you think about it, the more it starts looking like a honeypot. a beautiful little funnel. same phones, same os, same dev pipeline, easily watchlisted. a SIGINT wet dream dressed up as freedom.

truth is, privacy is dead. the smart move now might not be to keep chasing it, but to deal with the loss. process it. figure out how to live in a world where you're visible by default. pretending there's still a way to fully hide just keeps you trapped in a false sense of control

I know i sound defeatist here, i am not saying give up, i am saying pick your battles. Your phone is not your friend and nothing you do will change that.

patchtopic• 12 months ago

GrapheneOS says

"European authoritarians and their enablers in the media are misrepresenting GrapheneOS and even Pixel phones as if they're something for criminals. GrapheneOS is opposed to the mass surveillance police state these people want to impose on everyone"

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784469162979608

State employees in their official capacity making inaccurate claims to media about GrapheneOS to smear it as being for criminals and as the users as largely being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114813613250805804

johnisgood31• 12 months ago

And at the same time:

GrapheneOS is not immune to exploitation, but the fearmongering done in these ongoing attacks on it is very clearly fabricated. They feel threatened enough by GrapheneOS to engage in coordinated attempts at convincing people that it's unable to protect their privacy and security.

So... they (cops and friends) are saying that GrapheneOS is for criminals, AND that it does not work at protecting anyone's privacy and is not for security. Amazing.

See: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784553445461948 and the rest.

kspacewalk2• 12 months ago

Fridges are for criminals too. The very good ones can keep the severed body parts cold for longer, thus preventing spoilage and reports of foul odours from downstairs neighbours. Will Frigidaire and Bosch stop selling this criminal technology to criminals?

qualeed2• 12 months ago

I think people are misinterpreting your comment? Or I am.

What I think you are saying is:

The police are arguing both sides (in typical fashion). On one side, the police say that GrapheneOS is for criminals because of its privacy, etc. However the police are also trying to convince people that GrapheneOS is not private or secure, in an attempt to sway people from using it.

t_mahmood• 12 months ago

It's like my bank's application, your mobile with all the latest security update is prohibited, because the bootloader is unlocked. But your 6-year-old mobile that received its last security update 3/4 years ago is fine!

hluska5• 12 months ago

This whole thing is quite the stretch. Someone who clearly has no idea what they’re talking about acted like a know it all on a forum. I don’t see how that’s evidence of a coordinated attack. Police saying dumb things about security tech is nothing new either nor is it a smoking gun.

Occam’s razor applies even when we want to believe a cool story.

NoGravitas2• 12 months ago

“By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” - Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism

giantg24• 12 months ago

This is basically the ploy with many secure phones - say it's for criminals but actually have a backdoor for law enforcement. I wonder if there's some exploit on the Pixel or Graphene that law enforcement is now aware of.

reverendsteveii• 12 months ago

well if it doesn't work for protecting your data it doesn't work for protecting criminals' data as well, right? or is this a lot less about making rational sense and a lot more about manufacturing consent to violate our rights?

KingOfCoders2• 12 months ago

"being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project."

Yes, I know, age of hyperbole, but a state sponsored attack on the project is mass arrests, blocking of funds etc.

Graphene does their PR, the police does their PR. Both have different views on the world.

BolexNOLA2• 12 months ago

That's a very high bar for "state sponsored attack." I'd say the various internet ID verification laws being rolled out qualify as a state sponsored attack on our privacy/individual rights writ large.

chasil2• 12 months ago

I have never been to Spain, and I have only slight familiarity with issues in Barcelona and greater Catalonia, but this gives me pause:

"There’s a bitter irony here, too, as GrapheneOS recently pointed out in a tweet. The Spanish region of Catalonia was at the center of the massive Pegasus spyware scandal in 2019.

"Pegasus, a sophisticated surveillance tool sold exclusively to governments, was reportedly used to hack phones belonging to Members of the European Parliament and eavesdrop on their communications. Yet, police in this very region are now scrutinizing savvy Pixel and GrapheneOS users for hardening their devices against unlawful surveillance and other attack vectors."

FirmwareBurner4• 12 months ago

All this surveillance tech and law enforcement still don't know who the child abusers on the Epstein list/island were.

Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.

s_dev• 12 months ago

Basically the same old argument that Linux is used by black hat hackers.

It probably is but it's focus on security and privacy makes that so not that it's designed with nefarious purposes in mind. To us this is obvious but to lay people the nuance is lost.

benreesman• 12 months ago

Knowing my chosen configuration of phone stymies law enforcement overreach enough that criminals use same one? I chose wisely.

Cops think I did something wrong? Show up at my house with a warrant.

There are all kinds of ways that its easy to tell if someone is acting like a criminal, like trying to get and serve a warrant for their arrest.

Can't get a warrant without a warrantless wiretap? Fuck off then.

PicassoCTs• 12 months ago

So, can i be the voice of reason here? The Panopticon is unavoidable! Everyone who has a spark of self-preservation in himself, knows it already. Technology has given the individual insane powers to take down state-level actors (drones in shipping lanes) and soon the whole planet(mirror life etc.). We can no longer afford privacy, as sad as this is.

Privacy was a luxury we had, while we could bribe the better angels of our nature with the surplus of the past and while technology was something, that did not scale.

Now a terrorist could take a army of tanks while besieging a city. All the other justifications for a Panopticon are flimsy, but the fact that technology - our savior from savagery, has turned around and bit the hand it was supposed to feed, justifies the thing.

krunck• 12 months ago

In a true democracy where government serves the people, the people would be opaque to the government and the government would be transparent(nothing to hide) to the people. As we can't impose transparency on government, we can at least obtain opacity for ourselves.

lokar• 12 months ago

Throughout history one of the most popular things people want government to do is oppress and police other people.

jraph• 12 months ago

I do like that the government has entities that thwart attacks, and I'm not sure full transparency for these entities works well for everything.

Of course, I don't want this to be used as an argument to mass spy on the people.

hollywood_court• 12 months ago

Agreed. It's wild to realize that the current US administration campaigned on the promise that they would provide transparency regarding certain matters. Yet now they're doing everything they can to combat transparency for those same matters.

zetanor• 12 months ago

If the will of the people is to be trampled, then the people is to be trampled. True democracy is not mass democracy.

account-5• 12 months ago

I like my privacy. I'm not using grapheneOS yet because I've not bought one of the limited number of devices it can run on.

But honestly, of course criminals are gonna use these devices with grapheneOS, for the same reasons any one interested in their privacy would. And if the police notice a trend towards it why wouldn't they state so and look to use that as an indicator. Why is there a probkem with this?

allthedatas• 12 months ago

Cops say low speed limits and speeding tickets are for your safety and not just another tax.

Cops say guns are only for bad guys.

Cops say 3d printers and bitcoin are for terrorists

Cops say a lot of dumb things because they are generally (and necessarily) not that bright, but also because they are lazy and frequently corrupt.

lisbbb5• 12 months ago

I voted you back up because it's important to understand that if the powers that be had their way, encryption would be illegal.

MurkyLabs• 12 months ago

I use grapheneOS, it's the reason I bought a pixel but not for nefarious reasons but rather I don't like how much control Google has (it's ironic I had to buy a google phone) on android phones even from other manufacturers and the targeted marketing and information that I would be giving out. I also don't like that Android implimented the feature where you couldn't access the Android>Data folder for 'security reasons' and have to plug it into a computer to access any of those sub folders, it's my phone let me do what I want with it. Graphene lets me access any of those folders without issue

nicman236• 12 months ago

the fact that they refuse to consider other phones ie fairphone or nothing phones that have the bootloader relockable is the reason that i do not use graphene.

it seems like a great os but i am not giving google money to get away from google.

dmix3• 12 months ago

You're welcome to donate money to them so they can hire developers who can support multiple phones.

StrLght• 12 months ago

They don't refuse other manufacturers, it's quite the opposite -- GrapheneOS provides list of requirements for future device support. AFAIK Fairphone and Nothing don't fit more than a few requirements from this list.

https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

subscribed19• 12 months ago

Fairphone is dangerously insecure. Nothing phone is not much better.

It's not only the design of the hardware, but also patches for vulnerabilities and delivering updates for several years.

You're suggesting it's ideological (which is completely untrue), while the fact is: pixels are at the very moment the only Android hardware secure enough to even care about hardening: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

(there's little sense in securing the OS if the hardware doesn't allow disconnecting the USB or there is no secure element throttling PIN attempts, right?)

subscribed19• 12 months ago

Oh, I forgot to add and can't edit my comment, so: they are talking with another OEM about the potential alternative hardware for the future GOS.

I hope it's something good. But in reality it's probably Samsung which is the only other vendor bothered enough to add a basic secure element. Maybe they will upgrade it?

christophilus• 12 months ago

Swappa is your friend. A used pixel doesn’t directly give Google money.

theandrewbailey• 12 months ago

I don't like how much control Google has (it's ironic I had to buy a google phone) on android phones even from other manufacturers and the targeted marketing and information that I would be giving out.

To a normie non-tech person, buying a several hundred dollar Google phone, only to delete Google from it sounds stupid, like you've set your money on fire.

Yes, I recently bought a Pixel and immediately installed GrapheneOS.

bdqioxnfkeof2• 12 months ago

It's crazy that you care about privacy and buy a Google phone.

microtonal3• 12 months ago

Not sure what you are saying. In the Android space, only Pixels have a good secure element and Samsung has an acceptable secure element. Of those only Pixel allows unlocking the phone without blowing an eFuse. So, Pixel is currently the only phone that allows installing an alternative OS and provides a secure element.

Most phones without a separate secure element do not protect against brute-force PIN attacks, etc.

As is often said, the most secure phones are:

Pixel with GrapheneOS > iPhone >> Pixel with PixelOS >>>>>> anything else

silveraxe932• 12 months ago

Everyone is commenting as if this is an attack on privacy. Read the article, I might have missed it, but I saw literally nothing on this. The main point is that police are profiling people using Pixel phones. Nothing about making it illegal, or trying to remove encryption.

Look, I literally have a Pixel phone running Mullvad. I care about privacy. But everyone here is reading the headline and arguing against a strawman.

This should be a discussion on how valid it is for police to profile people. Or maybe if it's actually true that drug dealers are using GrapheneOS. Europe _is_ attacking encryption and privacy. But this is not it.

whoami7302• 12 months ago

It is about running a false campaign to say using Graphene OS is the same as being a criminal.

Aurornis2• 12 months ago

The original quote was a comment from one police representative about Pixel phones being the preferred choice of narco traffickers in their region.

All of the extrapolation about people using GrapheneOS globally feels like journalists trying to squeeze as much hype as they can get out of this one sound bite from one police rep in one area.

walterbell• 12 months ago

Is disparagement of GrapheneOS good or bad for privacy?

silveraxe932• 12 months ago

Arguments shouldn't be soldiers[1]. In fact, this I'd say this is harmful to privacy.

If you start caring more about how it supports your side rather than the truth, you're playing politics. And in that battlefield you'll lose to eurocrats.

- [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers

Aurornis2• 12 months ago

The main point is that police are profiling people using Pixel phones. Nothing about making it illegal, or trying to remove encryption.

I had to click through several links to get to this part.

It’s an off-hand comment from a single police person who was trying to make some point.

The android news sites are getting a lot of mileage out of that single comment from a single person.

DrScientist7• 12 months ago

This should be a discussion on how valid it is for police to profile people.

Exactly - though in this case I'm not sure what that means - if they 'feel more alert and suspicious' - that's just going on in their head ( pretty difficult to control that ). If on the other hand it means you are constantly getting stopped and searched that's another issue - but then you could argue that's then argument about the stop and search rules in whatever country.

ie what counts as reasonable grounds for the police to take concrete action.

constantcrying• 12 months ago

The main point is that police are profiling people using Pixel phones. Nothing about making it illegal, or trying to remove encryption.

How can you think that profiling people based on their phones is not harmful to privacy?

In most western countries surveillance requires prior evidence of wrongdoing, if your phone brand or phone OS can be used as evidence that you might be engaging in criminal activity, that is of course a danger to privacy. It should be normal that people use Software and Hardware that respects their privacy and desiring privacy should never, by itself, be allowed to be evidence of criminal intentions.

graemep7• 12 months ago

In most western countries surveillance requires prior evidence of wrongdoing

Less and less so. Take a look at the way the laws are going in the UK and the EU.

ip263• 12 months ago

Profiling isn’t taken as evidence of criminal intentions. It can be as simple as, you do random searches, but you increase the frequency of random searches for people who match multiple behavioral criteria empirically associated with criminals.

pessimizer• 12 months ago

This should be a discussion on how valid it is for police to profile people. Or maybe if it's actually true that drug dealers are using GrapheneOS.

Why can't it be a discussion about how valid it is for police to use the desire for privacy as a basis for profiling? Is that not allowed?

Are you saying that we're required to either talk about:

1) whether the police should profile anyone at all for any reason (why not this particular reason again?), or

2) whether Spanish criminals desire privacy, and therefore more often choose GrapheneOS than other groups of people (is this controversial? Is it worth discussing? Can't we just take the Spanish police's word for such an unsurprising data point?)

Those are our only two choices? If so, than the conclusion is foregone. Police will be allowed to profile criminals and suspicious people, and criminals will attempt to refuse monitoring and searches.

I'd rather talk about whether refusing to be monitored or searched can be allowed to become official grounds for state suspicion, though. Even without your support.

pyuser583• 12 months ago

It seems they're profiling based on specific local conditions. Not many folks are installing graphene in their area, but there are lots of criminal gangs that do.

The situation would be different in, say, Silicon Valley. But they're dealing with the world they're in.

standardUser• 12 months ago

I'll take it even farther - this should be a discussion about what constitutes crime, and how a system that didn't criminalize common, victimless acts would have such a small pool of criminals to deal with that widespread demonization of this or that technology wouldn't be neccesary.

nelblu• 12 months ago

Happy GrapheneOS user here since 3+ years now. What's next now? People can't fucking use Linux because Microsoft or Apple can't spy on it?

Aachen5• 12 months ago

Next, as countries are requiring more and more age verification online, the EU accidentally outlaws GrapheneOS by introducing an age verification system that requires an OS certified by Google or Apple. https://chaos.social/@luc/114860815364169550

You're free to run GrapheneOS or Windows or whatever, so long as you also have a device that is attested to be untampered by Google Play or Apple's equivalent

Graphene replied in that thread (just ctrl+f for them), saying "Unfortunately, the EU is adopting the Play Integrity API enforcing having a Google Mobile Services device instead. We've repeatedly raised this issue with the EU Commission and many apps including ones tied to this specific project. We've never been given reasoning why they can't use the hardware attestation API instead."

I'm personally not so keen on that lesser DRM requirement either, since it's just another level of gatekeeping: ok now it's not only Google/Apple but also a few OSes that meet ?some? requirements, but e.g. GrapheneOS also doesn't unilaterally let me access data on my device, maintaining that full access is dangerous and cannot be allowed -- yeah, I'll agree data is safer when I can't even access it myself, seeing how much malware goes around for NT/Linux distributions where you can have root, but I'd still much rather live in a world where I'm the root on my systems. But anyway, that's maybe another discussion, the broader point is that even GrapheneOS can't talk sense into the EU with their lesser-but-still-DRM option

subscribed19• 12 months ago

You can fairly easily build and flash a rooted version of GOS yourself.

They just don't support it because it's an immense risk (in my opinion as well).

The other thing, reliable backup is slowly in the making. As I understand there's not enough devs to work on it right now.

mnahkies• 12 months ago

Tying legislation/compliance requirements to specific vendor (Apple/Google) that happen to be dominant today feels wild to me (as opposed to open standards).

Surely that directly entrenches their moat, and raises the difficulty of any new market entrants competing (leaving us with the effective duopoly we have today)

I fear this is increasingly becoming the case for most digital businesses through blanket requirements that don't taper into effect with the maturity/scale of the business - it's a legislative pulling up of the ladder behind them by creating high barriers to entry.

metalman• 12 months ago

each and every technology has and will be used in the commision of the very worst possible crimes. anything can and is bieng weaponised. any rational society would simply use our vast data sets to determine which specific preventable harm is effecting the most humans and can be elliminated for the lowest cost and effort.....do that, and then start working on the now new greatest harm ellimination. but in spite of asking and trying to figure this out myself, I can find no effort to actualy just gather that data and work from there .....everything is just another "cause".....for debate

2OEH8eoCRo03• 12 months ago

I don't trust Graphene but I want to. Who are the devs and who are their sponsors? I worry about supply chain attacks. Why should I trust their supply chain and anon devs?

kytazo2• 12 months ago

You don't trust the devs, you trust the public code

2OEH8eoCRo03• 12 months ago

Unless you build it yourself you do trust the devs. You aren't running public code on your phone you're running compiled binaries. Compiled by who? How securely? Who has keys?

It's also a leap of faith to assume that public code is any safer.

bugsMarathon88• 12 months ago

When is the last time you inspected your smoke detectors for covert audio/video surveillance components? And if you have not done so, why do you trust they do not possess such capabilities?

duxup• 12 months ago

The claim seems plausible as far as capable criminals go.

ChrisArchitect• 12 months ago

Related context:

Cops in [Spain] think everyone using a Google Pixel must be a drug dealer

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44473694

immibis2• 12 months ago

This is the best possible advertisement in these computer-savvy circles. I guess my next phone will be a Pixel with Graphene. I won't do anything illegal on it. If even the police hate it, it must be very safe from hackers.

RS-2322• 12 months ago

Or maybe that’s what they want you to think.

This is a hobby project funded by donations that is likely teeming with zero days and backdoors known by state actors.

A far cry from the company who pours millions into their OS and even refused to help the feds decrypt a terrorist’s phone.

immibis2• 12 months ago

If they said this. about some obscure platform then yes, but Graphene already had a privacy- and security-focused reputation.

throaway920181• 12 months ago

This is ridiculous ignorance and akin to Canada's near ban on the Flipper Zero. We might as well ban cars because they can be used to transport drugs and dead bodies.

I have run Graphene on my phone for some time. I'm not doing anything illegal with my phone or using it for nefarious purposes. I'm just not comfortable with Google (or any entity) having so much data about me.

lisbbb5• 12 months ago

Ha! Instead of Canada encouraging more secure solutions, they just ban the flipper zero. Figures.

perihelions• 12 months ago

This is all based off a one-line quote, by one police officer, interviewed anonymously in one newspaper in its "society" column. I don't want to go against the feeding frenzy, but, I think this one's a bit over-interpreted.

https://es.ara.cat/sociedad/sucesos/guerra-tecnologica-movil... ("Guerra tecnológica: el móvil de los narcos contra los troyanos de la policía")

or https://www.ara.cat/societat/successos/guerra-tecnologica-mo... ("Guerra tecnològica: el mòbil dels narcos contra els troians de la policia")

"Cada vegada que veiem un Google Pixel pensem que pot ser un narcotraficant"

(You'd have to navigate through four layers of links to find this: two layers of androidauthority linking to itself, then through xatakandroid, then finally you get to the primary source, the Catalan-language daily Ara. Though, for reasons, it's linking to a Spanish-language machine translation of the Catalan original—the "es." subdomain, which says Traducción no verificada at the top. So, we're five levels removed from the primary source, which is one sentence, which has gone through two rounds of machine translation (ca -> es -> en)).

fkyoureadthedoc• 12 months ago

Sorry I'd rather just read the title and then start arguing against my fantasy

beeforpork• 12 months ago

One could say the same thing about matchboxes being used for arson and cash being used for money laundering, but no one’s calling on regulators to outlaw either.

Matchboxes -- OK. But cash is certainly a target. It is also relatively easy to push, as using a card is so much easier! Look at Sweden and presumably other countries where cash is basically gone. And no (loud) protests from privacy advocates that it is even hard to get cash today. I will just use an app to lend you 10 EUR for the beer.

Also throughout the world, using cash is only possible legally up to a given amount (a few thousand EURs ATM, but still) -- because large sums of cash are suspicious. Of course large amounts of money are suspicious because only criminals would even want to pay large amounts of money, right? Like, pay for a car or a vacation, or pay rent or taxes.

Speaking of which, in many countries, it is basically impossible to pay taxes in cash, although technically, it should be allowed. Like in Germany. Or pay for a bus ticket in cash. But some poor souls don't have a bank account. Hmm...

Some countries deanonymize cash by embedding RFID chips (e.g., Australia).

Of course it is not done for surveillance, but only for good goals.

nyc_data_geek1• 12 months ago

Good enough for protecting the privacy of criminals, good enough for the rest of us. Seems like a solid ad campaign for Pixel+Graphene

Havoc• 12 months ago

The core issue here is that privacy concerned looks the same to police regardless of motivations - criminal or principled.

That does sweep up innocents in the net. But at same time if police see a strong correlation with criminals then focus on it from their side seems logical too. Forcing them to intentionally be blind to that sort of correlation seems insane too.

Tricky

AgentMatrixAI• 12 months ago

So they are profiling people using Pixel phones with GrapheneOS....because its good at what it does? Am I reading this right?

gchamonlive4• 12 months ago

That got me interested in it for the privacy claims, but unfortunately it only supports Pixel phones. The reasons are technical and fair. It's just unfortunate that Pixel isn't sold or supported in many countries in the world. I live in Brazil and even in Mercado Libre where it's supposed to support the entire Mercosul market, I can't find a single Pixel 8 for purchase. It's sad we're excluded from accessing this amazing project.

chasil2• 12 months ago

I think that you could get similar privacy capability with LineageOS if you do not install Google Play (via MindTheGapps).

This will reduce functionality of the device. You will not get Graphene's fine-grained permission control, and you will also not have Google Play Services (so many apps will not run).

raron• 12 months ago

AFAIK Nitrokey sells Pixel phones with GrapheneOS preinstalled worldwide.

gchamonlive4• 12 months ago

It's not a matter of just purchasing. I can very well import from Amazon or AliExpress. Problem is support post sale and finding accessories like screen covers and cases. It's a lot of hassle for a device less feature-packed than you regular Samsung phones.

can16358p• 12 months ago

Criminals use knives to stab people.

By the same logic, anyone who has a knife in their kitchen is a suspect.

throw0101b• 12 months ago

"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

* Touch of Evil, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052311/quotes/?item=qt0321627

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_of_Evil

colechristensen2• 12 months ago

Impressions from grapheneOS users? Alternatives? I have an old but essentially never used Pixel 3a I'd like to set up with something as a backup.

EDIT: sad, Pixel 3a no longer supported, too old

subscribed19• 12 months ago

I'd say Pixel 7 if you want patches and releases for a couple more years.

colechristensen2• 12 months ago

Thanks, but my motivations were more "what should I do with this perfectly good old phone" LineageOS has been ok during a quick try

potato37328422• 12 months ago

They spew assertions like this not so that people believe them but so that they can reference them when establishing probably cause, applying for warrants, etc.

stronglikedan• 12 months ago

And I say cops are criminals, and we are both right, and both wrong, at the same time.

tempodox• 12 months ago

Criminals also go to department stores. And to hairdressers. And they drink water. There is no end to deeply suspect activities criminals engage in!

tzs• 12 months ago

Do criminals do those things much more frequently than non-criminals?

In Spain 86% of phone buyers buy from the top 5 brands. Pixel is not among those. Only 1.7% buy Pixel phones. Police say that they have observed that among criminals the percent with Pixels is much higher.

Suppose police have a dead store clerk and only 3 people who could have possibly done it, and those people are 1 Pixel owner, 1 Samsung Galaxy owner, and 1 Apple iPhone owner. Given that criminals are buying Pixels at a rate higher than the general population does, and assuming they are not buying Galaxies and iPhones at a higher rate, can the police use that in statistically valid way to help their investigation?

The answer is yes.

Let (c) = the probability that a random phone owner in Spain is a criminal.

Let (p) = the probability that a random phone owner owns a pixel, which is 0.017 in Spain.

Let (p|c) = the probability that someone owns a Pixel given that they are a phone owning criminal. Police say that this is higher than 0.017, but they do not give a number. I'd expect they wouldn't really notice if it was only a little higher. I'd guess it would need to be at least 0.05 for them to notice, so let's go with that. If someone finds a better number it is easy to adjust in the following calculations.

Let (c|p) = the probability that someone is a criminal given they have a Pixel.

Bayes' Theorem tells us that (p|c)(c) = (c|p)(p).

Rearrange that to get (c|p) = (p|c) (c) / (p). Plugging in 0.05 for (p|c) and 0.017 for (p) gives:

(c|p) = 2.9 (c)

In our case with 3 people to investigate, one with a Pixel and two without, if we are sure that one of them must be the criminal the probability that it will be the Pixel owner is 59.2%. It is 20.4% for the Galaxy owner and 20.4% for the iPhone owner [1]. If the police don't have the resources to investigate all 3 in parallel they should check out the Pixel owner first.

[1] Actually, I don't think that is quite right. I think that because I added the condition that we are sure it must be one of them the distribution will change slightly. It still should be close though.

imperfect_blue• 12 months ago

They can but they shouldn't.

Replace phone ownership with race or social-economic status and it should be obvious why profiling shouldn't be done.

numitus• 12 months ago

Please read about Bayes' theorem. If 50% of criminals use the os, and 1% of population it is goodnpoint to check any the OS owner. The same way Police Will check your id if you Wear robbery mask, or sell small packets on the Street.

ponorin• 12 months ago

GrapheneOS lost me on PR. For every updates they post on their social media there's guaranteed to be a rant about how other projects are doing things Wrong. They talk down on any and every security- and privacy-related projects (or open-source projects in general) if they align even slightly out of line according to their idea of security and privacy, regardless of their own merit. Dig even deeper they also like throwing around the word "slander" and "attack" without backing it up. In fact I am certain I will be greeted with a friendly wall of text by somebody from GOS in this very thread sooner rather than later.

GrapheneOS is the most secure, arguably most private, hell the most feature-complete, user-friendly custom ROM (but they also hate the word "custom ROM") out there. I've imported a Pixel, because it wasn't available in my country, just to use GOS. So it is deeply frustrating that they are doing things the way they do. Hubris is their longest-standing, "wontfix"-labelled vulnerability.

craftkiller• 12 months ago

FWIW I think its good to elaborate on how other projects are doing things incorrectly (though I agree the GOS people could use some diplomacy and decorum). For example, with the fairphones for the longest time the only answer you could get on why grapheneos doesn't support it is that the phone is not secure. That answer doesn't leave me informed, all it leaves me with is "someone on the internet told me it wasn't secure". For the newest fairphone 6 they actually elaborated and covered things like the lack of a secure element. That leaves me informed, so now I can look up what a secure element is, why I want it, and then make an informed decision for my next cellphone purchase.

subscribed19• 12 months ago

I looked it up (as in spent a last few weeks going through the forum and PRs) and when they say "slander", it's backed up.

When they say other projects are insecure, this is for example because of the claims /e/OS based on the utterly insecure hardware and two major versions of AOSP, unpatched, is touting itself as a leading project in the privacy landscape.

I don't think they talk down any security - related project and I've never seen the generalised "they talk down on (...) open-source projects in general" - this is what I would myself call slander, because tbh it's dogs bollocks.

"Slander" or "attack" is said when there are baseless accusations (like above about attacking, quote, "any and every security-- and privacy-related project") because they don't have outlets or big money behind them which would simply state the facts and call out the accusations.

If you have examples of theese words "thrown" without basis (ie without sustained prior attacks on GOS), I'm sure every interested person would like to see it. If you wanted to show the examples of the innumerable privacy- or security-related projects that are _attacked_ by GOS, please share examples.

There are multiple so-called privacy and security related projects which are known for the sustained and baseless bad messages, and these don't get a pass, because it's clear it's intentional and in the bad faith.

Valuable projects and services are promoted and recommended based on merit and not favours (eg: they can argue based on facts why installing apps from accrescent or Google play store is generally safer than from the F-droid).

They don't hate the "custom ROM", they explain why it's a misnomer - and you using it here after saying they hate it (and either not knowing or not caring why it's wrong) is clearly an act in the bad faith :)

I struggle to see an attempt in the factual reporting in your post. The only thing I could connect over is their attitude in certain situations, but..... the rest of your post is just.... incorrect?

1shooner• 12 months ago

I don't need PR from my free mobile OS developer. I just need regular secure updates, which they seem to do a good job providing.

protocolture• 12 months ago

"I would use a thing but they were mean" doesnt seem like the amazing argument you might have thought it was.

amaccuish• 12 months ago

I'm a happy CalyxOS user for precisely this reason.

tonyhart7• 12 months ago

says a lot about android in general

they literally planted an backdoor that federal agency can force google to give out information

Henchman21• 12 months ago

Why do we keep using a thing that exists to subvert the interests of the average person?

akomtu• 12 months ago

Governments are a lot like abusive parents: they see people as difficult kids that must be managed. They believe that what they do helps them become good adults, but in reality they just love to control and abuse people. Rejecting this abusive parenting or simply setting personal boundaries makes them really angry and suspicious, and get you labelled a criminal. In the future, when thought-reading brain implants will be a thing, you will be labelled a criminal for not having one, for hiding your thoughts or even for refusing to have your thoughts managed by that device.

skhameneh• 12 months ago

When I see articles like this, I'm conflicted with a number of thoughts. There's a strong factor of engagement baiting and engaging with it spreads the messaging.

GrapheneOS is a great project that allows people to have some control over their devices. This is important for receiving patches when manufacturers have abandoned them for whatever reasons. I've used GrapheneOS to revitalize old devices with some success. Additionally, having the option for privacy is fundamental to security and I would argue is important to help maintain democracy. I do not like seeing these attacks on those trying to maintain control of their own devices. There are processes for checking areas of concern and when a cellular device is connected to a network, it's up to those external parties to follow the proper procedures in place.

I suppose as a write my comment my level of tolerance for bullshit continues to be pressed. Because there is too much bullshit to adequately deconstruct here.

fitsumbelay• 12 months ago

Just saying "Catalunian" or even "Spanish" instead of only "cops" may get the article less clicks but it would've gone a long way at least pretending to be a worthwhile read. This is a very narrow case in point for basically advocating for a specific product not a class of products. That smells like a sales pitch to me.

dmitrygr• 12 months ago

Criminals also drink water and breathe air. Quick, ban those.

CommanderData• 12 months ago

As long as the baseband is closed source, GrapheneOS is just a false sense of security.

ndkap• 12 months ago

With this news, I am inclined towards buying Pixel and install GrapheneOS in the future just to stick to the pro-mass surveillance police state. However, I am concerned about the warranty. Does anyone know if installing Graphene on Pixel eliminate the hardware warranty?

Also, what do these cops and government officials say about iPhones? iPhones, according to what I've heard, also have good privacy, is that not true? Is it not private enough for criminals?

contact9879• 12 months ago

installing third-party OSes on pixels does not void its warranty. It's one of the biggest reasons why GrapheneOS only supports Pixels and not e.g. Samsung's Galaxy lines.

heavyset_go4• 12 months ago

Also, what do these cops and government officials say about iPhones? iPhones, according to what I've heard, also have good privacy, is that not true? Is it not private enough for criminals?

By default, iMessage conversations are backed up iCloud with keys Apple has access to. Governments simply have to ask Apple nicely for the data, or serve them a warrant/subpoena/court order/etc. Apple has a web portal to automate this for them because of how often they share data.

For a while, iOS zero days were cheaper than Android exploits because they were so plentiful, but it looks like prices for iOS and Android exploits are about equal now, suggesting both platforms are similarly exploitable.

heraldgeezer• 12 months ago

Heard this in Sweden too. Normals dont know what it is and dont question it.

"encrypted phone" = criminal

nine_k• 12 months ago

This is an old, tired lesson: technology is morally neutral. It can serve equally well both good and bad purposes, and there's no way to coax technology make moral decisions for you.

Banning a technology in an attempt to limit its bad uses still dispropotrinally affects it good uses: legitimate, law-abiding users are less prone to breaking the rules than criminals, who break the rules by definition.

We have seen this happening again and again, from hi-tech things like encryption and DRM to basic stuff like knives. But fear and moral panic very often overcome the voice of reason, of which we are seeing another case.

fracus• 12 months ago

The argument "why do you care about your privacy if you have nothing to hide" needs to be addressed. The problem with this argument is you don't decide what you need to hide or not, the authorities do, and we all know authorities can be corrupted. Just look at the US government right now for example A.

Just as an example. You are gay. You live in a gay friendly place. Until one day, a new government takes office that will incarcerate gay people. They now have access to every one's phones who previously had nothing to hide.

betadeltic• 12 months ago

Agreed, I once read someone put it like this: Saying you have nothing to hide, so you don't care about privacy is like saying you have nothing to say, so you don't care about freedom of speech. In both cases the ramifications are far reaching.

arcanemachiner• 12 months ago

You don't even have to go that far. Just ask them for their banking information, passwords, and maybe some naked photos of them to top it off.

Everyone has something to hide... unless there's something utterly wrong with them.

Vinnl• 12 months ago

That argument is easily refuted by "sure, I don't mind the government/Google/etc. having access to all that".

The GP argument is the correct one. You might not mind now, but that's not the problem.

ip263• 12 months ago

“The average person commits felonies a day” is probably a better way to communicate this idea.

ip263• 12 months ago

… three felonies…

7bit• 12 months ago

"Why do you care about privacy if you have nothing to hide"

For the same reason you close the door when you are pooping on the toilet. You know what you are doing there, I know what you are doing there, so leave the door open.

That's what I always lead with, if we come into that territory :)

hackrmn• 12 months ago

Saying "I don't care about 'privacy' because I have nothing to hide" can be compared to saying "I don't care about free speech because I have nothing to say". Which says a lot, frankly.

542354234235• 12 months ago

I have nothing to hide and I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still close the door when I'm taking a shit and wouldn't like someone taking pictures of me doing it.

jstrebel• 12 months ago

I think this "argument" has always been flawed. I don't need to justify what information I would like to share especially with state agencies. In Germany, this is even encoded in a legal principle called "Informationelle Selbstbestimmung" (informational agency). It's not about the information, it's about my right to decide about sharing it.

CommenterPerson2• 12 months ago

Going to seriously consider Graphene for my next phone. Does it work only on pixel or any other android, what are the minimum requirements? (pardon, non tech HN user here).

wilsonnb3• 12 months ago

Only on pixels, specifically only pixels that still get security updates from Google.

https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices

RS-2322• 12 months ago

Honeypot much?

ghushn3• 12 months ago

Cops say a lot of things. I trust next to none of them.

In fact, if cops say a thing there's a reasonable chance that it's the opposite of what I should be listening to.

msgodel• 12 months ago

Still waiting for the day I get in trouble with the cops for not having a phone at all.

b00ty4breakfast• 12 months ago

any method of evading the ever-increasing centralization and regulation of society will inevitably be destroyed. efficient policing demands these obstacles be removed.

lisbbb5• 12 months ago

Phones and guns are just throwaway tools to criminals.

bdqioxnfkeof2• 12 months ago

It's not explained why pixel.

jmakov• 12 months ago

Wonder how companies handle this. As a company you'd want to protect all the IP on a company device. And make sure no tmp gov is fiddling with the HW.

artk42• 12 months ago

Meta: broken all possible privacy laws with "localhost tracking"

Me: f*ck off, enough, time to buy pixel and grapheneos

Govt: meta pays _me_ $32bln for breaking _your_ privacy. What? You want to defend yourself? You are a criminal, then! That way, Meta wouldn't pay me again!

Monopolies are the only source of crime throughout history.

Monopolies are the brightest sign of collective irresponsibility.

Monopolies are useless for society in their attempts "to compete", since they are only trying to leverage their size and thus eventually bring harm.

With these days $ numbers, they can be so big, that they create a cantillion effect on market just because of their existance on market even without manipulation. Should be resected, dissasembled and limited in their further growth, including govt bodies, incentivized to decentralize.

sim7c00• 12 months ago

its a bit ironic governments push policies advocating for user privacy and data protection etc. yet criminalize use of good encryption and privacy preserving technologies. :')

i guess it's their usual trademark tho -_- 'ew, war is bad' drops bombs on children via proxy state

Luckily, they still, in most countries, need to actually _prove_ criminality. But the line there is also growing ever thinner... confiscating your device as_if you are a criminal despite not being able to prove anything... - they will happily destroy your qubes laptop rather than admit they can't prove anything.

You either unlock it for them, or see it destroyed.

This to the point that if you care about privacy and want to travel internationally, i'd say, take a burner phone u use for holidays and get the local sim -_-. if they take that, nothing is lost except a few $$ for a cheap device.

Funes-• 12 months ago

I think we aren't far from GrapheneOS being rendered unusable. We desperately need to make Linux phones viable daily drivers. Desperately. It's the only way we'll have access to critical funcionality while being independent from mega corporations like Google and whatever they decide to do with AOSP and their Pixel phones. Right now everything regarding our privacy is in their filthy hands.

CommenterPerson2• 12 months ago

Would very much like something like this. But I still don't get it .. a system that cuts out g**gle, but is based on g**gle hardware? How could that grow or last? .. In the meantime, using an Android with location disabled, Duck browser, and bare minimum apps.

billy99k• 12 months ago

If you are a criminal, you should learn to blend in and use common phones/operating systems, but in a way that still evades the authorities.

Cops say criminals use a Google Pixel with GrapheneOS – I say that's freedom

Related Stories