51–60 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t you need that sort of paranoia to go out and create a privacy focused mobile OS?
A world-weary cynicism suffices.
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.
It's amazing to me that everyone even slightly disliked by the ruling class isn't doing this. Like remember when Nintendo took down a bunch of Switch emulators... from GitHub? Why were they primarily on GitHub?
That said, there are many forks of the projects DMCA'd still floating around.
Canada is liberal and a better option for hosting privacy projects than EU. Every few months a bad proposal comes out of somewhere in EU. The details of this case don’t matter, the tendency is big government control.
EU is not a country. There are many different countries in the EU.
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…
> self-advertised as uncompromising privacy focused OS > didn't even compromise even a bit (negotiation is already a compromise) against a country who is notorious for advocating for privacy-invasive policies in recent years > get lectured by yc high-horse rider on the obligation blah blah, even when by and large this move doesn't materially affect the end-users in any substantial way I used 4chan style because most…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it sends the message that GrapheneOS can be pushed around and manipulated: A slight hint of a threat and they flee. Somehow I doubt France thinks they "won". What they wanted was a back door into the OS. Not only did they not get that but they lost what little bargaining power they had when gOS left France. > it sends a message of inexperience in business, negotiation You don't negotiate with terrorists. Obviously…
> Somehow I doubt France thinks they "won". What they wanted was a back door into the OS. There is absolutely nothing pointing to France wanting a backdoor in GOS. The only thing we have is one prosecutor quoted in a far right journal saying she wouldn’t hesitate to charge them if they are linked to organised crimes and refuse to cooperate. When France wants a backdoor in an open source project, they do it like every…
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.
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…
Source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 project founder has a well documented history of what I would consider a persecution complex. Source?