Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

ramblinggit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#11

Post by hansel_der »

techrat wrote: post #7
johnbrodie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing something is better than doing nothing, you're leaking less data overall even if you install all the same apps. In general though, yes, with a deGoogled phone you have to watch out for what apps you're installing and try to stick to FDroid for the most part. There's also Warden [0], which does a decent job of stubbing out built-in trackers for your "must have" apps that are otherwise privacy-invading. [0] https…

Since this requires root, what benefit does it have over having a HOSTS file that also blocks the trackers directly by holing the hostnames?

hosts file is only usefull to blackhole domain NAMES not endpoints. also you have to keep it updated.

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#12

Post by mindslight »

djrogers wrote: post #3

I'm having a hard time understanding how "de-googling" and Android phone fixes this issue: > Privacy - smartphones and their apps reporting where you are at, what you are doing, what you are looking for to third parties like Google and it’s advertising network. Specifically the second part - their apps. Does e-os do something to prevent 3rd party apps from requiring extraneous permissions, or using those permissions…

An OS that represents the user should have the option to "allow" extraneous permissions (perhaps even by default), but return junk data - mock location, fake contacts, arbitrary device identifiers, etc. And to transparently proxy network traffic as well. The point of sandboxing is that an app should not be able to know whether it has been given access to private information, plausible garbage, or a mix of both.

I have no idea if this particular OS can do this. But it's a possible difference between proprietary and Free land, and where the Free world needs to head to fight back against nonconsensual permission demands.

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#13

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

How are these phones with regard to an unlocked bootloader and passing Safety Net? Online banking apps refuse to launch on some de-Googled Android versions, on the grounds that the device is now supposedly insecure. The new COVID vaccine passports, which several governments have announced will exist only as an Android/iOS app producing limited-time QR codes (because paper certificates are too easily forged), might have the same demands for the Android they are running on.

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#15

Post by ForHackernews »

177tcca wrote: post #9
ForHackernews wrote: post #2

Worth noting that if you're savvy at flashing custom ROMs, you can install /e/OS (their preferred styling) on your own devices, too: https://e.foundation/get-started/ I've been using it on my old OnePlus for about a year now, and reasonably happy with it.

If you're not savvy at installing custom anything, and just want a setup that keeps the Android security model intact (unlike all of these LineageOS forks), check out GrapheneOS.org.

Most commercial apps will not run on GrapheneOS, because it doesn't provide alternative implementations of Play Services.

https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os_issue_tracker/issues/204

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#16

Post by nobodywasishere »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #13

How are these phones with regard to an unlocked bootloader and passing Safety Net? Online banking apps refuse to launch on some de-Googled Android versions, on the grounds that the device is now supposedly insecure. The new COVID vaccine passports, which several governments have announced will exist only as an Android/iOS app producing limited-time QR codes (because paper certificates are too easily forged), might ha…

It's not going to pass SafetyNet without workarounds using Magisk Hide.

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#19

Post by Animats »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #18
Animats wrote: post #17

The account gives you an email address youname@e.email and cloud storage which syncs with the phone. Doesn't tethering to this new service defeat the whole purpose of the project?

Not if “degoogling” is the purpose.

It's like, having escaped the walled garden, the user feels the need to be caged again.

Re: eOS DeGoogled Privacy Smartphone in the US Review

#20

Post by searchableguy »

mindslight wrote: post #12
djrogers wrote: post #3

I'm having a hard time understanding how "de-googling" and Android phone fixes this issue: > Privacy - smartphones and their apps reporting where you are at, what you are doing, what you are looking for to third parties like Google and it’s advertising network. Specifically the second part - their apps. Does e-os do something to prevent 3rd party apps from requiring extraneous permissions, or using those permissions…

An OS that represents the user should have the option to "allow" extraneous permissions (perhaps even by default), but return junk data - mock location, fake contacts, arbitrary device identifiers, etc. And to transparently proxy network traffic as well. The point of sandboxing is that an app should not be able to know whether it has been given access to private information, plausible garbage, or a mix of both. I hav…

> An OS that represents the user should have the option to "allow" extraneous permissions (perhaps even by default), but return junk data - mock location, fake contacts, arbitrary device identifiers, etc.

Many Chinese roms have started to do this. They have option to provide fake or blank data when an app asks to access sensitive information.

I expect this to be available in stock android soon too.

Post reply on HN