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

Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

discuss.grapheneos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 343 posts

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#131

Post by neonstatic »

yaro330 wrote: post #124
neonstatic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find it ironic at all. Zero trust for anything Russia related.

Durov is about as anti-Putin and russia in general as one can get. He go fucked hard in russia and has been going extremely hard against the censorship in russia. TG is one of the few chat apps that can avoid russia's suppression measures, when everything else working over internet fails.

Half of Russian military uses it in the field. I do not care what story that guy is spreading around about his affiliations or lack of with Russia. Zero trust. Never touching Telegram.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#132

Post by joyous_limes »

cf100clunk wrote: post #41
kennywinker wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Immature maybe Yeah, that’s the issue. I don’t want people who behave immaturely, impulsively, or vindictively, having a key role in something as important as my phone os. I want stability, maturity, and thoughtfulness.

Mental health and wellness issues in high tech research and development are everywhere. I would suggest that you focus on the product and what it can/cannot do for you.

[dead]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#134

Post by kibibu »

tokai wrote: post #74
uqers wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://xkcd.com/225/

Realistically Stallman would start lecturing them on how his licenses are not open source.

Richard Stallman would most certainly not use the term open source to lecture somebody about free software.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#135

Post by TFNA »

yaro330 wrote: post #124
neonstatic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find it ironic at all. Zero trust for anything Russia related.

Durov is about as anti-Putin and russia in general as one can get. He go fucked hard in russia and has been going extremely hard against the censorship in russia. TG is one of the few chat apps that can avoid russia's suppression measures, when everything else working over internet fails.

Durov has been going hard against censorship because the pressure on Russians to switch to MAX might consign his own app to oblivion. But to call Durov “anti-Russia” when Telegram development and servers remained in Russia, is to ascribe to him a dissident status that he doesn’t actually deserve.

(Durov himself is known to regularly visit Russia, while denying he ever visits Russia. Telegram opened a Dubai office claiming that it was now a Dubai-headquartered company, but that was a mere legal formality; no one was actually there at that office, and journalists visiting it found that not even the building staff knew anything about Telegram. In practice, the company continues to exist out of Russia.)

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#136

Post by Jamesbeam »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #115
neonstatic wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find it ironic at all. Zero trust for anything Russia related.

he is not pro-Putin, the Telegram team was forced to leave and it has been blocked several times in Russia.

Not being pro-Putin doesn’t really matter to Putin. If he tells Durov to sit and be a good dog, Durov will sit and be a good dog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Kk7kobMQY

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#137

Post by joyous_limes »

toaste_ wrote: post #52
Cortex5936 wrote: post #14

I love GrapheneOS and I use it daily for more than 2 years. However, and as Louis Rossmann pointed out in one of his videos, they really need to work on the "defensiveness" and "rants" of their communication. Even when they are 99% right most of the time, they sometimes don't come as mature and professional.

When Louis Rossmann thinks your communication has a problem with going on rants, it must be pretty out there.

Rossmann is a way bigger ranter than GrapheneOS people. Have you seen some of his videos lol.

Rossmann wanted to work with GOS and they didn't want him. So Rossmann made that video to make Daniel look bad for revenge probably. Saying he was leaving GOS was a lie, not that GOS can push malicious updates which was also a huge lie. Even after pointing that out that part wasn't corrected because Louis doesn't care about accuracy, he only cares about making Daniel/GOS look bad. He used his big following to punish Daniel. Now he works with Nick from Calyx after he got pushed out and are doing business together.

The more you learn about the story, the more you see the Copperhead stuff was just the beginning and those involved held grudges and pushed their grudges onto more people who bought their lies and it continued. Privacy-focused OSes that pretend to compete with GrapheneOS suck. GrapheneOS is led by someone with integrity, unlike some other projects.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#138

Post by joyous_limes »

antonvs wrote: post #60
roughly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises.…

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#139

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

Avamander wrote: post #18
gslepak wrote: post #11

> Donaldson, now 42, is a self-taught hacker who never finished school, was briefly unhoused, and spent most of his twenties in a “positive hardcore punk band.” “It’s cool being smart,” he told me. “But if you can’t pay your bills, you’re a dumbass.” > The domain “Copperhead.co” was registered by Donaldson in 2014 and incorporated in 2015 under both Donaldson’s and Micay’s names. The idea was that shares would be spl…

> They "handle the business" while someone else does 99% of the actual work, then ask to split 50/50. As a response, Micay decided to destroy the update signing keys for all the CopperheadOS devices out in the wild. Resulting in financial damages to Donaldson. Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something.

That is a perfectly level-headed response. Signing keys must be protected. In the event of a hostile takeover, where a malicious party seeks to compromise the privacy and security of your userbase, destroying the keys is a sensible decision. Failure to do so, and successful compromise of the keys, will let the malicious party push whatever update they want, and it will be accepted due to being signed correctly.

It was not a disagreement about shares, it was a hostile takeover. Someone who never owned the project sought to steal it.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#140

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

Avamander wrote: post #106
freehorse wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something According to the linked responses, the keys were not deleted because of disagreement over financial share, but over how the keys were to be used (in particular, in potentially dangerous security-wise ways), for which he did not want personal responsibility over (the keys belonged and used by him even before that project)

[flagged]

The claims arent vague, they are quite specific in what happened. This wasnt spiteful and this wasnt disgruntled. It was the logical choice given the circumstances.
Post reply on HN