Librem 5 USA • Hacker News Board

Re: Librem 5 USA

#41

Post by icefog » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #27

icefog wrote: post #12

I'm unsold on spending $2,000 or even $700 on a new phone, but I also care deeply about privacy and security. Is there any strong reason to choose "Librem" over a cheaper Android running LineageOS or GrapheneOS? They can be purchased for a fraction of the cost and have been quite reliable for me.

The problem is no matter what custom flavor of Android you run, you are still running an OS made by an ad company designed from the ground up to spy on you. And crucially, every time you buy an Android phone and flash another OS on it, you just paid for an Android phone, reinforcing the monopoly and generating profit for companies pushing the Android platform. The correct solution is to refuse to buy a phone that shi…

> The problem is no matter what custom flavor of Android you run, you are still running an OS made by an ad company designed from the ground up to spy on you.

LineageOS and GrapheneOS are based on AOSP, which is an open source project not really "made by an ad company". I agree with your latter point about supporting their hardware and typically buy used phones/computer for that same reason.

Re: Librem 5 USA

#42

Post by voxic11 » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #31

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that's essentially impossible, but they're isolating the cellular modem into a detachable peripheral so it has no deep access into your device.

Why is it essentially impossible? Compared to the rest of the phone that seems like a relatively small thing.

The FCC approved baseband chips run closed source software and do not have documentation for writing your own.

So you need to reverse engineer the chip, write your own software for it, and reflash it. But after reflashing it will no longer be FCC approved because some of the FCC requirements were implemented in software. So it will need to go through the FCC approval process again which can be very expensive.

The alternative would be to create your own chip from scratch but that is even more expensive.

Re: Librem 5 USA

#43

Post by hbbio » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

icefog wrote: post #12

I'm unsold on spending $2,000 or even $700 on a new phone, but I also care deeply about privacy and security. Is there any strong reason to choose "Librem" over a cheaper Android running LineageOS or GrapheneOS? They can be purchased for a fraction of the cost and have been quite reliable for me.

The former CTO of Purism itself recommends the PinePhone instead:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Zlatan-T...

Re: Librem 5 USA

#44

Post by seba_dos1 » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

computerex wrote: post #39

jolmg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like it can be fixed with a software update, though. A few days of waiting doesn't seem like that big of a deal. It's not like the phone is going to be forever unusable.

If it was an issue that could be fixed "in a few days" why wouldn't they simply fix the issue and then release the phone? Or are you suggesting that not being able to make phone calls on a phone is something that slipped through their testing? It has been a "few days" since their announcement and of course this "bug" hasn't been fixed. It seems less like a bug and more like a major design flaw/hurdle.

> and of course this "bug" hasn't been fixed

You can hear call audio if you use CI images since a few days ago already. Last rough edges are being sorted out right now before finally packaging it all into PureOS.

Re: Librem 5 USA

#45

Post by daxorid » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #5

uncletaco wrote: post #4

Imagine wanting a privacy-centric anything that was Made in the USA

As opposed to China?

China's MSS can't indiscriminately shoot my dog and throw a flash-bang into my child's crib, but the FBI can.

I'd rather gamble with the evil oppressive government that doesn't have jurisdiction here, than the evil oppressive government that does.

Re: Librem 5 USA

#46

Post by computerex » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

fghtr wrote: post #34

computerex wrote: post #29

A fair warning to anyone looking at placing an order for this. https://jaylittle.com/post/view/2019/10/the-sad-saga-of-puri... https://jaylittle.com/post/view/2019/10/the-sad-saga-of-puri... https://jaylittle.com/post/view/2019/10/the-sad-saga-of-puri... The company practices a lot of shady business. Their "phone" that they are so proudly claiming to be releasing to backers cannot place phone calls , the camera doesn…

>They shipped out a "phone" that can't place phone calls. They also shipped a devkit, whose screen did not work. But a software update made it work. Same here. This is the only phone, where updates make it better, not worse.

> This is the only phone, where updates make it better, not worse.

I don't know how you can even begin to support this claim. My phone updates apply a bunch of security patches, which by definition make the phone better and more secure.

This is certainly the only "phone" that literally can't place phone calls. If this was a minor issue that could be addressed by a simple software patch in a timely manner, they would have all the reasons to do that and ship the phone after fixing such a glaring flaw.

Re: Librem 5 USA

#47

Post by icefog » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

swebs wrote: post #22

icefog wrote: post #12

I'm unsold on spending $2,000 or even $700 on a new phone, but I also care deeply about privacy and security. Is there any strong reason to choose "Librem" over a cheaper Android running LineageOS or GrapheneOS? They can be purchased for a fraction of the cost and have been quite reliable for me.

Of course there's the old adage of "Vote with your wallet" by buying a privacy-respecting phone, you're incentivizing manufacturers to make privacy-respecting phones. And $2000 is quite a vote

I value this sentiment and do feel charitable, but $2000 is not a small amount for me - I could buy 10 or more used Android phones for the same price and flash them with open source software to give to friends and family. Wouldn't that maximize my contribution to collective privacy instead?

Re: Librem 5 USA

#48

Post by computerex » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

seba_dos1 wrote: post #44

computerex wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was an issue that could be fixed "in a few days" why wouldn't they simply fix the issue and then release the phone? Or are you suggesting that not being able to make phone calls on a phone is something that slipped through their testing? It has been a "few days" since their announcement and of course this "bug" hasn't been fixed. It seems less like a bug and more like a major design flaw/hurdle.

> and of course this "bug" hasn't been fixed You can hear call audio if you use CI images since a few days ago already. Last rough edges are being sorted out right now before finally packaging it all into PureOS.

The issue is that you can neither hear call audio nor transmit any audio, and it'll be fixed when the fix is in the hands of the customers that got the device.

Re: Librem 5 USA

#49

Post by ska » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #31

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that's essentially impossible, but they're isolating the cellular modem into a detachable peripheral so it has no deep access into your device.

Why is it essentially impossible? Compared to the rest of the phone that seems like a relatively small thing.

You can't ship it without regulatory approval. That's unlikely to happen for an open baseband, because it facilitates abuse (at least, in the eyes of the regulatory bodies).

Re: Librem 5 USA

#50

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #31

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that's essentially impossible, but they're isolating the cellular modem into a detachable peripheral so it has no deep access into your device.

Why is it essentially impossible? Compared to the rest of the phone that seems like a relatively small thing.

It's a combination of there not being that many companies that produce one and none of them being particularly open about it, and the carriers not wanting them to be because they're stodgy bureaucracies that don't like to be embarrassed when things make it easier for people to find security vulnerabilities in their networks.

So we're stuck with isolating it instead. At least you can make sure it has no access to your stored data, camera or microphone.