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

GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#31

Post by ranger_danger »

hacker_homie wrote: post #22
Bender wrote: post #2

They should consider making their primary site a .onion and then have clear-web portals in many countries that serve as a secondary class site or cache . The physical location of the primary site should be unknown.

We can only use technical solutions to this problem for so long. The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. The state would not like you to have that because they are lazy and want to be able to look at your messages. Because they have convinced themselves that messages are a crime. This is a political problem not a technical one.

> The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy.

Legitimate question, is there any concrete evidence that the majority of the public actually does want this?

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#32

Post by Lariscus »

concinds wrote: post #24
Lariscus wrote: post #17

This looks hugely blown out of proportion. The project founder has a well documented history of what I would consider a persecution complex. Once again he has provided no substantial evidence. The only thing they provided are some, admittedly borderline libelous, news articles. Unless they provide some more concrete information about these supposed attempts of getting a backdoor installed into the system, I will cons…

The evidence is not "news articles", but the contents of those articles where a high-ranking prosecutor threatened to go after GrapheneOS "if they don't cooperate with the law". No matter your feelings about the creator, I think this was entirely the rational choice. France is pro-Chat Control. For about a year now there's been an anti-drug trafficking fervor among legislators and government, in which they've pushed…

I don't disagree about leaving France over their position on chat control or legislation.

I disagree about them essentially spreading misinformation about what actually happened. One prosecutor, that probably doesn't even know what GrapheneOS is, making boisterous claims to the press, is not the same as being contacted by the state about adding a backdoors.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#33

Post by whatshisface »

ranger_danger wrote: post #31
hacker_homie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can only use technical solutions to this problem for so long. The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. The state would not like you to have that because they are lazy and want to be able to look at your messages. Because they have convinced themselves that messages are a crime. This is a political problem not a technical one.

> The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. Legitimate question, is there any concrete evidence that the majority of the public actually does want this?

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/10/18/how-american...

80% are concerned.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#34

Post by jjgreen »

aunty_helen wrote: post #20
Lariscus wrote: post #17

This looks hugely blown out of proportion. The project founder has a well documented history of what I would consider a persecution complex. Once again he has provided no substantial evidence. The only thing they provided are some, admittedly borderline libelous, news articles. Unless they provide some more concrete information about these supposed attempts of getting a backdoor installed into the system, I will cons…

Don’t you need that sort of paranoia to go out and create a privacy focused mobile OS?

A world-weary cynicism suffices.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#35

Post by palata »

ranger_danger wrote: post #11

For what it's worth, Micay has a long history of accusing other people of slandering the project without providing any evidence or rebuttals. When asked for details, he gets defensive and accusatory, then creates multiple sockpuppet accounts to argue the same points over and over.

I read about this when I first discovered GrapheneOS, and it looked like it. And it may be partially correct.

But on the other hand, I have read a lot of "drama" between e.g. /e/OS and GrapheneOS, and more often than not, it looked like GrapheneOS was criticising actual limitations of /e/OS and /e/OS (a mix of the community and official comms) seemed to be the one being unfair.

GrapheneOS generally is pretty direct at saying stuff like "their approach is strictly less secure" or "they are often worse than Stock Android", and I understand that this is not good publicity for Murena. But I am yet to see one of these claims to be wrong: all I can say is that the tone is very direct and could offend the /e/OS people, even if the claims are true.

On the other hand, instead of just acknowledging and trying to explain why /e/OS may be a good choice (e.g. if you happen to own a phone that is not a Pixel and that is well supported by /e/OS), I have seen actually wrong claims from /e/OS against GrapheneOS (sometimes downright technically wrong about security/privacy). And while GrapheneOS is quite exemplary with their support (if your phone is supported, then it's best in class), I have run /e/OS on a couple of phones and I have seen by myself that some of the security updates were 3 years old while the Stock Android was actually up-to-date.

So yeah... I get that it's a sensitive topic, but I feel like there is more a long history of people accusing GrapheneOS of accusing people, and I'm not anymore convinced that this is actually true.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#36

Post by 9dev »

ranger_danger wrote: post #31
hacker_homie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can only use technical solutions to this problem for so long. The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. The state would not like you to have that because they are lazy and want to be able to look at your messages. Because they have convinced themselves that messages are a crime. This is a political problem not a technical one.

> The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. Legitimate question, is there any concrete evidence that the majority of the public actually does want this?

There is not. In fact, many users will gladly give away any notion of privacy whatsoever in exchange for a Candy Crush lootbox.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#37

Post by jasonvorhe »

Lariscus wrote: post #32
concinds wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is not "news articles", but the contents of those articles where a high-ranking prosecutor threatened to go after GrapheneOS "if they don't cooperate with the law". No matter your feelings about the creator, I think this was entirely the rational choice. France is pro-Chat Control. For about a year now there's been an anti-drug trafficking fervor among legislators and government, in which they've pushed…

I don't disagree about leaving France over their position on chat control or legislation. I disagree about them essentially spreading misinformation about what actually happened. One prosecutor, that probably doesn't even know what GrapheneOS is, making boisterous claims to the press, is not the same as being contacted by the state about adding a backdoors.

I don't get what you're saying.

Interviewed cop says they'll go after them if they don't cooperate, which would mean a) requesting assistance to law enforcement via means such as backdoors and server seizures and b) resulting in legal steps against the organization and its members by France. Who in their right mind wouldn't take this a threat? After Wikileaks, the Telegram CEO, pushes for chat control and other authoritarian techniques?

Sure, the cop might be a nobody in the grand scheme of things but they're representing a government agency publicly so they're probably not babbling out nonsense in a bar somewhere, being overheard by a reporter.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#38

Post by Klonoar »

mmooss wrote: post #7

I understand the concerns and anger of GrapheneOS's leadership, but the hyper-escalation tactic doesn't do what they hope: First, it sends a message of inexperience in business, negotiation, and conflict resolution: 'I'm going to take my ball and leave' - it looks like an emotional overreaction without strategic thinking. These days you sometimes see powerful parties making similar threats - e.g., Uber threatening to…

Exactly what ball do you think they’re taking and leaving?

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#39

Post by serial_dev »

9dev wrote: post #36
ranger_danger wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy. Legitimate question, is there any concrete evidence that the majority of the public actually does want this?

There is not. In fact, many users will gladly give away any notion of privacy whatsoever in exchange for a Candy Crush lootbox.

I want digital privacy… but a lootbox is a lootbox.

Re: GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France

#40

Post by jasonvorhe »

protimewaster wrote: post #30
neilv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

I was going to say something along these lines. There was a post on the GrapheneOS forums a while back, from Micay, claiming that a well-known YouTuber who had backtracked on recommending GrapheneOS (because of Micay's behavior, according to the YouTuber) had probably actually backtracked because the YouTuber was financially involved with a competing project. My initial reaction to the post was, "Oh, I guess this is…

Most people rather trust some newspaper or magazine instead of investing 10 minutes into researching on their own only to then start sockpuppeting for the conclusions of the author who probably didn't do their due diligence in writing the piece in the first place.
Post reply on HN