Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker • Hacker News Board

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#161

Post by joyous_limes » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:05 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #47

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.…

If they were doing that one thing, they would not have posted this. It's fine not to market to consumers, but this raises additional concerns about the founder's judgement. Someone else claimed that they deleted update signing keys for copperhead devices. That's seriously concerning if true; possibly bad enough to switch away from grapheneOS.

[dead]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#162

Post by microtonal » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #47

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.…

If they were doing that one thing, they would not have posted this. It's fine not to market to consumers, but this raises additional concerns about the founder's judgement. Someone else claimed that they deleted update signing keys for copperhead devices. That's seriously concerning if true; possibly bad enough to switch away from grapheneOS.

He deleted the signing keys because it looked like the other owner of Copperhead OS wanted to make the signing keys available to government agencies and/or criminal organizations. He deleted the signing keys to protect their users against malicious updates, which is the right thing to do and should increase trust in him and the project.

It's worth actually reading the linked post. Relevant segment:

In 2018, matters between Micay and Donaldson came to a head over Donaldson’s desire to pursue business deals with criminal organizations, and his attempts to compromise the security of CopperheadOS, including by proposing license enforcement and remote updating systems that would allow third-parties to have access to users’ phones. As part of this process, Donaldson began to demand that Micay provide Donaldson with the “signing keys” - i.e. the credentials required to verify the authenticity of releases of CopperheadOS. Donaldson advised that, in order to secure certain new business, potential customers required access to the Keys.

The keys had been in continuous use by Micay, in his personal capacity, since before the incorporation of Copperhead. However, more importantly, any party with the keys could mark malicious software as “authentic”, and thereby infiltrate devices using CopperheadOS.

Micay was unwilling to participate in that kind of security breach. Since Donaldson had control over certain infrastructure for the open source project, he would be able to incorporate (or hire others to incorporate) the privacy-damaging features described above for all future releases of CopperheadOS. Micay therefore deleted the keys permanently and severed ties with Copperhead and Donaldson.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#163

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:08 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #107

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.

My gut feel is that Micay is genuine, and obviously also very defensive. At least some of the defensiveness is warranted. Maybe most of it. Regardless, it comes across in most GrapheneOS communications, and it's sometimes counterproductive. A related issue, which I'm sure Micay can appreciate, is that users of GrapheneOS tend to be cautious, and increasingly will want to know why the project should be trusted, now th…

All of the defensiveness is warranted. They speak neutrally and objectively.

The project is not going to relinquish control to any 3rd party. Not even the Motorola partnership is given control over the GOS project. The hypothetical you describe is not possible by design.

The GOS project takes no issue with critical thinking, and encourages it. But that is often used as an excuse to handwave attacks. There is a very big difference between criticism/critical thinking and attacking them.

Note that there are more individuals in the project than Micay. Multiple people handle multiple responsibilities, its not one person.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#164

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #22

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.

Personally, I like that they come across as a little paranoid. That's exactly the attitude I want in the people protecting my privacy and security. I hope the developers lie awake at night, unable to fall asleep because terrified that someone somewhere is plotting to attack and exploit them

[deleted]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#165

Post by goodpoint » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #33

margalabargala wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.

Then avoid GrapheneOS

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#166

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #23

Georgelemental wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I like that they come across as a little paranoid. That's exactly the attitude I want in the people protecting my privacy and security. I hope the developers lie awake at night, unable to fall asleep because terrified that someone somewhere is plotting to attack and exploit them

There's healthy paranoia and there's treating even casual commentary/criticism from anyone as an existential threat & coordinated attack...and responding to that with sustained, coordinated attack campaigns online. That's what Micay's history is. That's not healthy for any project.

This is false. Commentary and criticism is not treated as a coordinated attack. Coordinated attacks are treated as coordinated attacks. Criticism is often used as an excuse to try and hide attacks, and many people unfortunately cannot tell the difference.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#167

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

user_7832 wrote: post #97

busterarm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's healthy paranoia and there's treating even casual commentary/criticism from anyone as an existential threat & coordinated attack...and responding to that with sustained, coordinated attack campaigns online. That's what Micay's history is. That's not healthy for any project.

Could you share a link or something about this? > ...responding to that with sustained, coordinated attack campaigns online. That's what Micay's history is. For the rest, in general, I'm tempted to give grapheneOS the benefit of the doubt. Running any FOSS project is hard, running it against the (implicit) wishes of OEMs/Google (who throw in things like Play Integrity) is even harder, and doing it when 3 letter agenc…

[deleted]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#168

Post by orblivion » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

roughly wrote: post #26

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #3

[flagged]

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.…

It's not just about being friendly. If they have a bubble around them of employees, true believers, and people just afraid of speaking out that chills free expression of criticism, the truth has trouble getting out, which hurts trust.

Still a user though.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#169

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

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 publicly blasted a private discussion, twisting what was going on, and then lied to his own viewers. Such a claim from an identity verified kiwifarms account holder holds no weight.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#170

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #149

Matl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Not that I disagree but Louis Rossmann giving someone advice to tone down the rants is ironic.

[flagged]

GrapheneOSs posts are made to combat misinformation. Drawing public attention from those who may be misled and put at risk is how one combats misinfo. Its not ranting and its not somehow unreasonable to defend oneself.