Live data from Hacker News

Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

discuss.grapheneos.org

81–90 of 343 posts

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#83
I personally can't understand why anyone bothers doing open source anything.

This Micay guy spends so much time and does something hugely beneficial and we're arguing about how he responds to criticism?

I'd rather direct and blunt rather than the weasel words and lies most companies put out.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#84
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

From a security-minded user perspective it makes sense to destroy keys when instead of a single entity I receive updates from I get another entity that is not equivalent, and half of my previous entity thinks that the other half is sus.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#85

Earlier 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.

Based on how discourse in the US has been perverted by inches and millions of mosquito bites they may not be wrong. Stamping out bad information fast and hard seems to be the only way to combat mass coordinated disinformation. Being polite just lets people play the "both sides have merit" game.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#86

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.

It's a personality type / disorder (pick your poison). There's no hope for change. Programming seems to attract such people, because they are fixated on being right and proving that they are right. I know a few more examples. My common sense policy is - if the software these types produce works for me, I will be using it, but I will never allow myself to be dependent on it. That kind of person will gladly burn their…

[flagged]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#87

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]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#88
post #11

> Donaldson, now 42, is a self-taught hacker who never finished school, was briefly unhoused, and spent most of his twenties in a “positive hardcore punk band.” “It’s cool being smart,” he told me. “But if you can’t pay your bills, you’re a dumbass.” > The domain “Copperhead.co” was registered by Donaldson in 2014 and incorporated in 2015 under both Donaldson’s and Micay’s names. The idea was that shares would be spl…

> They "handle the business" while someone else does 99% of the actual work, then ask to split 50/50. As a response, Micay decided to destroy the update signing keys for all the CopperheadOS devices out in the wild. Resulting in financial damages to Donaldson. Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something.

> Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something

According to the linked responses, the keys were not deleted because of disagreement over financial share, but over how the keys were to be used (in particular, in potentially dangerous security-wise ways), for which he did not want personal responsibility over (the keys belonged and used by him even before that project)

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#90
post #60
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises.…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN