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.
[flagged]
Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
61–70 of 343 posts
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#62I 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.
[flagged]
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#63[flagged]
#2 on the other hand sounds unhinged, though no source is provided. Threatening legal action for broad criticism of project management is wild.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#64I 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.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
The keys got wiped for way spookier reasons than Micay wanting money. Intelligence wanted in, and Donaldson seemingly would have been happy to oblige.
[flagged]
> 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.
> 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?
> Yes and yes.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#66Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#67Earlier 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.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
From the story you’re commenting on: > 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. > 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? > Yes and yes.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#69I 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.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#70[flagged]
A lot of the readers here think Wired is still pre-2006 / pre-Condé Nast ownership. I was personally involved in a story they did in 2015 that was paid for by a three letter gov agency to bad mouth a companies tech into changing. I know only a few of their tricks, and they’re dirty as hell.