Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

Hey! On a quick introductory note, I'm the community manager and the person who was interviewed. Please, read questions 17, 25 and 26 and our respective answers to them in the linked forum thread. In particular the following parts that I'm pasting here for convenience:

Question 17: Did your and Donaldson values begin to diverge? Was Donaldson more concerned with making money than you were?

Answer: [...] 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.

Question 25: Did things between you and Donaldson devolve when he approached you about a compliance audit? Did he tell you that he needed to know how the signing keys were stored?

From Wired:

We understand that Daniel's recollection was not that James wanted to know more information about how the signing keys were stored, but that he wanted direct access to them.

Question 26: Did you suspect his request was tied to a deal he was brokering with a large defense contractor? Did you believe this would put the entirety of CopperheadOS’ user base at risk?

Answer: Yes and yes.

The large defense contractor in question was Raytheon. The decision to destroy the signing keys was not based on a financial disagreement, but an existential one. Every single CopperheadOS user back then would have been compromised otherwise. It's of course a big deal given the implications, but it acted as a last resort for Daniel to stop a hostile takeover attempt fueled by greed, which he ultimately took because there was no other way out.

that is one extremely unsubstantiated statement

I'm thinking about this a bit more.

It may be the case that Daniel and the project are so under siege that they need to take a hostile attitude toward some of the people they interact with as a matter of self preservation. They may have no other option. But taking this posture while also being fair to all of the people around them (i.e. some people who aren't actually attacking them) may be difficult or even impossible. I can see this behavior in myself sometimes. I just don't have the energy to be fair. "F U".

I wouldn't want to see friendly corporate slop either. I appreciate how down to nuts and bolts the communiques are on Mastodon and how deadly serious they take everything. That part of the communication style makes me trust them more.

I think a good step in the right direction might be acknowledging that being defensive necessarily leads to erring on the side of assuming bad faith rather than good, which leads to some mis-judgements. So far you said that GrapheneOS is open to all criticisms, which (though I haven't followed the space very recently so my memory on specifics is hazy) just does not seem to match my interpretation. I think that if we were having this conversation on Twitter or Mastodon, Daniel would have blocked me by now (if he hadn't already blocked me years ago).

All the stuff about members of our team not being stable is ridiculous and only works in favor of people or organizations that don't like us or want to damage GrapheneOS.

GrapheneOS has multiple people helping out. Many developers as well as people who help out with non-development work. It's a big claim to say that the whole team is unstable.

I'd suggest reading the article again. Considering the situation, the party about deleting the keys should be a good sign for anyone reading it. It shows that the project's leadership cares about doing things the right way. Members of the team are similarly dedicated to helping build and support an OS that improves people's privacy and device security, not to scam users by making a flashy product and rake in cash. Or, in Donaldson's case, work with shady companies and even possibly criminals.

Privacy and security projects like GrapheneOS are important considering the political landscape these days. People really need to stop repeating inaccurate claims about us, like that we're criminals, unstable, crazy, etc.