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

201–210 of 343 posts

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#201

Post by ysnp »

There are a lot of judgemental comments here criticising Daniel's character, responses and handling of what was likely a very trying and stressful period in their life.

Barely any comments about the linked thread which is about Wired publishing an article that was extremely poorly researched after having misled GrapheneOS about the intention and content of what would be published. This seems like the sort of thing that should earn a disclaimer on future Wired articles as worthless and get them removed from RSS feeds/have subscriptions cancelled. Complete lack of integrity and respect for standards. Why did they not interview anyone else involved in the project or around at the time?

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#203

Post by akimbostrawman »

HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #169
toaste_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#204

Post by balamatom »

mvkel wrote: post #64
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.

Being "right" shouldn't excuse bad behavior, especially if you depend entirely on a community to survive, which we all do.

Why the scare quotes? Being right is the literal opposite of bad behavior.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#206

Post by other8026 »

R1shy wrote: post #29

[flagged]

Just read the article again and I'd suggest also reading responses we sent to fact checkers (many answers didn't even show up in the article). James' side of the story is riddled with lies. So, if you read the article with that in mind, you can see that Copperhead got steered in the wrong direction by James. Daniel has been the owner of the open source project from the beginning and Copperhead was never in control of it. It was right to move forward without James. Nothing paranoid about that. It's more a move by someone who is dedicated to doing things right.

See the attacks on GrapheneOS and even other privacy projects trying to make them look like they are designed for criminals. Even French law enforcement took part. We have shared these details publicly and even with links to articles with quotes. There was even news about authorities in Spain assuming anyone with a Pixel was likely a criminal.

Months ago, we saw tons of reports of organizations reporting hacking GrapheneOS without any evidence or links to court cases. We never claim that GrapheneOS isn't hackable, but we still haven't seen any credible evidence showing forensics companies were able to hack it.

These are just a few examples of how GrapheneOS is being attacked. Again, we're not the only ones.

It's also important to note that GrapheneOS has many project members. GrapheneOS isn't a one man show.

Our responses to these things are not out of paranoia. We want our users to know what's going on, so we keep them informed. What's wrong with that?

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#207

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

orblivion wrote: post #189
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS is open to criticism about their project. The issue is criticism is often used as an excuse to conceal attacks.

Maybe true, but but the flip side is that sometimes what is called an attack is actually criticism. That's how it appears to a lot of us from the outside.

GrapheneOS wants to post more positive things, rather than just defensive replies. But they have very little choice in the matter. If the inhumane levels of attacks werent happening, they would have more time to discuss future features, how they choose to approach features, etc. But ignoring the attacks only make it worse. The suggestions to ignore it, even if genuine, arent helpful.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#208

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

fsflover wrote: post #192
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they said here is accurate, not sure what youre trying to show?

What exactly is accurate? Have you seen my reply to that? Hardware kill switches cut power and prevent any recording.

Their entire post regarding pinephones is accurate.

Hardware kill switches need to be correctly implemented. A kill switch cutting off mics and not sensors or speakers is incomplete and privacy theater.

Not to mention kill switches assume the device is already compromised, at which point everything on it is likely compromised as well.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#209

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

fph wrote: post #194
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS has plenty of evidence and they post it alongside their claims. They post it carefully though, and are willing to provide it to people upon request.

How far down do you have to scroll on https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS to find a citation to a source for one of their claims?

At the time of writing, I scrolled 4 posts down and found one. GrapheneOS are security researchers, so they often are a first party source. As for the attacks, they have plenty of evidence for their claims. They avoid giving any attacks more publicity, but they usually provide evidence if you ask.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#210

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #200
kiwiscum wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Rossmann made a thread on Kiwi Farms because Kiwi Farms members support him, and they support harassing his targets.

Rossmann has an account on Kiwi Farms for the purpose of engaging with his supporters on the site. He acts friendly with them and they choose to actively support him.

Rossmanns thread on the site is in support of him, not a harassment thread against him.

Post reply on HN