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

GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

discuss.grapheneos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 653 posts

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#621

Post by Cider9986 »

teekert wrote: post #572
strcat wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand... about /e/ and also look at what they say about devices with strong privacy and security including but not limited to https://grapheneos.social/deck/@GrapheneOS/11635397373214317... .

I'm aware of this discussion, I don't really like the way the Graphene people communicate, also against FairPhone. But nevertheless I'm looking forward to their Motorola offer that should come any minute now?

Grapheneos communicates with facts, not opinions. It can come off as abrasive but it's never unfounded attacks or opinions.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#622

Post by handedness »

fsflover wrote: post #532
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security.

What do they need to support to convince you? Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.

> What do they need to support to convince you?

I know you're already aware of this because it's been provided to you before, but for the folks reading at home, here are the device requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#623

Post by cromka »

the only problem I have with grapheneos is that it doesn't support E911 or the equivalent European standard https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/1174

Because somehow this is also a privacy issue. They're really taking this a step too far with making life-saving decisions on behalf of the user: if you call 911/112, you HAVE a reason to do so. If you somehow need to NOT share your location, it could let you OPT OUT.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#624

Post by handedness »

fsflover wrote: post #532
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security.

What do they need to support to convince you? Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.

> Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.

Supporting all hardware required by fsflover is not feasible for a small project.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#625

Post by nik282000 »

OtomotO wrote: post #257
sivers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! Me too! Exact same. Bought a Pixel 10. Intended to do the default Android for a while. But it was filled with ads for “Wicked” which had me looking at my phone with a sneer on my face I couldn't erase - as if someone had smeared feces all over it and threw it on my bed. So I jumped straight to GrapheneOS, which was way easier and less extreme than I had been warned. So beautifully minimal, with no crap. Now my ph…

What about banking Apps? No problem there? Some of them have ridiculous secur... compliance rules.

You trust a phone with your banking?

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#626

Post by handedness »

fsflover wrote: post #601
skorp01 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. Privacy violations do not solely exist as telemetry or data offered up by the platform to some other party. The protection is achieved through security. The major goal of something like GrapheneOS is privacy, which needs solid security as a prerequisite. The blobs, while proprietary, are not opaque. They are able to be examined and they ar…

> Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. So you're conflating privacy with security, as I expected. These are separate matters, although I agree that privacy can't exist without security. And security can be achieved by different means, e.g., by choosing what to run. You can't force your threat model and security approach on everyone and claim that everybody who disagrees with…

>> Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. > So you're conflating privacy with security, as I expected.

That's a totally defective reading of their comment.

> These are separate matters, although I agree that privacy can't exist without security.

He didn't conflate them, he stated something very similar to your formulation above.

> not purely on code correctness

This assumes a lot that isn't the case about platforms you regularly misunderstand.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#627

Post by handedness »

someguyornotidk wrote: post #314
handedness wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated. The Tensor G2 Pixel tablet was a solid device, and you can still buy it new from Google (with no choice on color or size in my country), but production has been discontinued and the two direct generational successors were canceled, in sequence. First it was skipping a generation, then it was canceling it entirely. The rumored "Pro" version also appears to have been axed. I've used mine daily since i…

> production has been discontinued and the two direct generational successors were canceled, in sequence. First it was skipping a generation, then it was canceling it entirely. The rumored "Pro" version also appears to have been axed. Pity. Genuine pity. Guess I'll continue using my 5 year-old out-of-support device until someone decides to make a decent GrapheneOS-compatible tablet with stylus pen support. If it brea…

It really is.

The Pixel tablet is a mere 3 years old, and still supported, for whatever that's worth. I don't use a stylus but I believe it supports USI2. I'll rock mine as long as I possibly can.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#628

Post by handedness »

3092-8121-9924 wrote: post #404
handedness wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seedvault is still woefully insufficient, but it sounds like there's work being done to replace it. I can't imagine the enterprise crowd will overlook that and I'm hoping the Motorola partnership enables faster development.

> Seedvault is still woefully insufficient Ever since seedvault implemented local D2D API for app data availability and changed their repository format (inspired by restic's hashing) I've grown to trust seedvault enough that it's my sole phone backup. Seems to schedule/backup/restore just fine, even cross-device. Gets all the apps and files I care about. Incremental runs are slow but efficient ( I have some UX gripes…

Thanks for your report. I'll give it another look.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#629

Post by fsflover »

handedness wrote: post #622
fsflover wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to support to convince you? Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.

> What do they need to support to convince you? I know you're already aware of this because it's been provided to you before, but for the folks reading at home, here are the device requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

You completely missed the context here. my comment was not about skipping the security features of GrapheneOS. The original parent comment was

> No, them supporting e/OS corroborates the claim that their goal is not privacy or security.

and I asked how they could be convinced about Fairphone's intentions given that the company is tiny and can't develop Pixel-level hardware.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#630

Post by fsflover »

handedness wrote: post #626
fsflover wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. So you're conflating privacy with security, as I expected. These are separate matters, although I agree that privacy can't exist without security. And security can be achieved by different means, e.g., by choosing what to run. You can't force your threat model and security approach on everyone and claim that everybody who disagrees with…

>> Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. > So you're conflating privacy with security, as I expected. That's a totally defective reading of their comment. > These are separate matters, although I agree that privacy can't exist without security. He didn't conflate them, he stated something very similar to your formulation above. > not purely on code correctness This assumes a l…

So this comment of yours just states that I'm wrong and the parent is right. I see how you advanced the discussion here.

> He didn't conflate them, he stated something very similar to your formulation above.

My formulation is not equivalent to "Librem 5 has no privacy", at all.

Post reply on HN