France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors

Post by izacus » Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 9:28 PM UTC

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #291

izacus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing though is - knives, fast cars and cash aren't built with deliberate motivation of thwarting the law enforcement and criminal investigations. GrapheneOS and its systems are - you can walk through history and see that they're deliberately working on systems that defeat law enforcements efforts of collecting data from seized devices and tracking criminal networks. This is a massive difference - even for knives…

This is a very counter-productive distortion of privacy, and borders on a lie about Graphene. Something designed to be private doesn't know the difference between a law enforcement officer trying to break into it and a criminal trying to break into it. There is no special "anti-cop only code" that gets executed, any more than there are special "cop tools" that exist on some physical plane where criminals don't.

Post by izacus » Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 9:38 PM UTC

kittikitti wrote: post #60

There were many decades where phones didn't have back doors. Now, it's the opposite case in the most dystopian way. It's concerning that all phones are required to have back doors for law enforcement and the enforcement is severe. I know several people who have a corrupt "cop they know" that they can regularly contact for favors. Why is it so out of the ordinary to distrust law enforcement when they have these tools?

Post by izacus » Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 9:41 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #139

Covzire wrote: post #52

At the end of the day, these attacks on privacy are always in reality for keeping incompetent politicians and bureaucrat's safe from meritocracy. Built into the onslaught of demands of backdoors are two key ideas: A) That the backdoors will only be exploitable by the authorities and that B) they're even necessary to carry out their work in stopping trafficing. I think most people know by now the first idea is prepost…

> The EU should focus on better police tools and tactics that detect and track the actual movement of goods. This is a point that doesn't get raised very often: the actual crimes occur in "meat space", not electronically on a device. Haven't police and intelligence been solving crimes like that since 'the beginning'? The coordination of a crime may be done electronically 'on device', but the actual crime occurs somew…

Post by LMYahooTFY » Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 9:48 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #311

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very counter-productive distortion of privacy, and borders on a lie about Graphene. Something designed to be private doesn't know the difference between a law enforcement officer trying to break into it and a criminal trying to break into it. There is no special "anti-cop only code" that gets executed, any more than there are special "cop tools" that exist on some physical plane where criminals don't.

It's how the governments and law enforcement see it. You can slam onto the downvote button all you want, but if you don't UNDERSTAND it, you can't FIGHT it effectively. It's a typical left failing where you pretend to be too dumb to understand where the authoritarians are coming from to effectively fight it.

Post by BLKNSLVR » Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 9:49 PM UTC

rstuart4133 wrote: post #301

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #9

Is it safe to assume, then, that Google and Apple already have backdoors in their operating systems as likely requested by many governments around the world (not least of which the one from their home country)? Or is GrapheneOS the only one built securely enough to need to be leaned upon? Either way, makes Google and Apple look bad and/or incompetent and GrapheneOS look like some kind of beacon of user protection / p…

> Is it safe to assume, then, that Google and Apple already have backdoors in their operating systems as likely requested by many governments around the world I don't know whether it is safe to assume. But if they are complying with Australian law, specifically the Assistance and Access Bill (2018) [0], then they must write an undetectable backdoor for the Australia government if asked (that's the assistance the bill…