Hi. There was a thread on this topic but closed yesterday by Jonah, and which included comments of note by Jonah, and Anon47486929.
I did, however, want to ask further questions in response to said comments.
BUT I only joined in to post in that thread, and before I unintentionally upset anyone by jumping straight in, I would like to ask if it is ok to proceed.
Braxman makes some strong claims about phone security going forward.
I would like to ask about those claims in a bit of detail, not about the phones he is selling per se.
Jonah, as you closed the thread, and might therefore might view this as a way of circumventing that, is it ok if I pose my questions? I assure you I am NOT a conspiracy theorist or similar, but nor do I have any expertise. I do however, like to understand tech as far as I can, and this seems like a quality forum to further that.
You can ask a question about a specific claim you hear if you want to know whether itâs true.
It doesnât lead to constructive conversations to ask for broad opinions about other people or products. So just ask yourself whether the question youâre asking will have an objective/verifiable answer.
Based on how you self-identify above, Iâd like to gently suggest/nudge you towards some alternative resources (alternativeâs to Braxman or others in the privacy space that lean heavily towards the conspiratorial side of privacy).
NBTV (Naomi Brockwell) and Techlore are two fairly beginner focused (or at least not overly technical) resources focused on privacy and security that do a really good job of making the topic accessible to a broader more mainstream audience, and focus on the more practical and evidence based aspects of privacy. Sun Knudsenâs channel is another that is pretty accessible to a less technical audience as well, and is pretty good at staying evidence based.
Thanks. I will come back after I have formulated a specific question/s.
Note that I didnât nor intend to, ask broad questions about a person or products. That rather, was the general tenor of the thread I saw.
Xe3: let me clarify. I do not have professional IT expertise. But I know alot more about technical matters than those covered by, say, 2 standard deviations from the mean, among non professionals. OTOH, if you are suggesting this forum is only intended for genuine tech experts, then please do say.
I am surprised you suggest Naomi Brockwell! She strikes me as the same level of near paranoia as Braxman, but with very little technical substance.
No no, that isnât what I meant to imply. Iâm sorry if my comment came off that way. This forum is made up of people of all experience levels and backgrounds and you are welcome here.
The recommendations I made were meant in addition to Privacy Guides. I was mostly just offering (what I consider to be) more credible and higher quality alternatives to Rob Braxman that would still be appropriate to someone who is new to privacy or not so technical (based on what you said about having no technical expertise)
She strikes me as the same level of near paranoia as Braxman,
That is definitely not my impression, I canât think of any examples of her leaning heavily on conspiracy or pushing or promoting âparanoiaâ. Can you recall specific examples of this, Iâm curious what you perceived that way? Iâve only watched maybe a dozen of her videos, so its possible I just havenât seen the sort of content you are referring to.
but with very little technical substance.
I mostly disagree on that point.
Her content is definitely the most âentry levelâ of the recommendations I made earlier, but that is kind of her mission and her niche (and why I recommend her content, because it doesnât rely on a high degree of pre-existing technical knowledge). I donât think her tone should be an indication of a lack of technical substance or research.
I think her target audience is just a broader and more mainstream audience, which is why I recommend her channel sometimes. Itâs content that is accessible to almost anyone, and content that doesnât rely on someone already understanding why privacy matters. I think her takeaways are typically pretty sensible, evidence based, somewhat moderate in tone and not overly absolutist, and mostly inline with more technically focused resources speaking to more technical crowds.
I think her channel serves as a good âon rampâ to caring about privacy, I think she is pretty good at articulating why privacy is important especially to those who may not already agree, and that is something that I think that many/most of us struggle to do effectively.
Hi Xe3, and thanks for that.
Re Brockwell. These are the thrusts of a number of her recent videos
*Donât use Telegram
*Donât connect your phone to your car
*You should turn off location tracking on your phone
*Throw away your SIM and carry around a portable data modem in your pocket/bag, and use a VOIP phone number instead. And claims she did / does this (which I highly doubt!)
*Donât use SMS
*Maybe donât use fingerprint unlock, as there are fake fingerprint workarounds.
*And many many more.
None of that involves promoting conspiracist level ideas, but it really is just selling paranoia. All these videos refer to genuine security issues, but all said, these are only issues for *people commiting crimes *people otherwise under scrutiny from governments. For the typical creature in the street, it matters not in the slightest whether Apple, MS, Google, or Meta can spy on everything you do. They just want to sell you stuff, or sell info to others who do. It is only a problem for those I mentioned, when said companies make that info available to Da Man. Brockwell, I fully agree, is aiming for âentry levelâ, but she is really suggesting your common and garden phone/pc user/ car user, should be doing all those things. ergo, selling unwarranted paranoia. That said, they are all legitimate issues and I fully endorse the idea of educating oneâs self about them, so I have no issue with her channel per se. Plus despite what I said, it all adds to awareness of security and privacy issues, which is important in itself, even if not operating international drug cartels.
Braxman, is not scamming anyone, he isnât promoting an conspiracist ideas either, but is suggesting exactly the same sorts of privacy precautions. Pretty much the same narrative as Brockwell, but with far more detailed explanation, and painting the big picture context. I was really surprised at the bile directed at him, calling a scammer etc in this thread
I have watched many of his videos, and cannot think of a single claim about the IT which is controversial.
I was going to quiz Anon47486929 as to what Braxman has ever said that cause his scathing criticisms. But on consideration of Jonahâs reply above, maybe it is best to not get into that sort of discussion.
Iâve watched a few Braxman videos he doesnt seem to do his due diligence and post references of the information. He also does a lot of weird blanket statements again with no references or other due diligence to make claims. The videos Iâve watched does not seem to show that the information he got was as a primary reasearch.
Iâve watched even fewer Naomi videos but somehow I donât find weird red flags in her videos.
These are the thrusts of a number of her recent videos:
Donât use SMS
Donât use Telegram
SMS and Telegram being poor choices for privacy is a near consensus opinion in privacy aware spaces
Maybe donât use fingerprint unlock
I use biometrics personally. But there are valid reasons not to which are applicable to some threat models more than others.
Throw away your SIM Card
That is not a fair or accurate characterization of that video, which is pretty well sourced and fairly nuanced, and definitely does not advocate that everyone just throw away their sim card.
Here is the actual quote:
So to summarize, having a SIM card in your phone has a lot of privacy downsides, you can mitigate these by removing the SIM from your phone and using a hotspot for connectivity instead, this is what I do, BUT there are certainly tradeoffs and youâll have to assess for yourself if this is right for your life
âŚin the meantime donât feel overwhelmed about smartphone privacyâŚ
This is actually a really good example of exactly the tone I believe we need more of in the privacy community.
Braxman, is not scamming anyone
Agree to very strongly disagree.
But my primary reason for disliking him is he tends to rely on vague innuendo, hearsay, and especially loaded questions and his own unsourced assertions stated authoritatively as if it were fact, in place of actual evidence, sources, or fact based arguments.
Ok so can someone please say in what way Braxman is defrauding or scamming anyone? I have now seen 7 or 8 posters say that, but with no reason why. What is an example of a weird blanket statement, weird red flags. I am all for fact based arguments, but so far noone has presented a single firm example against him. Rather, just vague innuendo and assertions, in place of actual evidence.
Noted, however: bqfls post. If if fails to work as claimed, I agree that is definitly not good. That does not, however, make him a fraud or a scammer. Brax.me is free, and itâs not like he pushes anyone to use it. The video in which I saw him mention it, it was an after-comment after suggesting using Convesations / Gajim. Personally, I am only responding to the information and analysis presented in his videos, which come across to me as completely legitimate. Note! He is also selling paranoia, to use my own words, as much as Brockwell, as none of this stuff really matters in real life unless one is up to No Good, and donât want government to find out.
Re Brockwell. No she does not affirmatively tell everyone to do all those things, but she is suggesting they are good things to do. Yet, seriously, noone is going to do any of them. I am guessing pretty much everyone who posts in this very forum uses SMS, most would have a Telegram account, have SIM, have a cell phone number, use biometric unlocks, do connect their phone to the car, do have location tracking. Further she recommended Proton mail.
As it happens, she is recommending exactly the same things Braxman is, by and large.
Yes I did look at the that link. Yes, I see criticism of the offerings, but what is the âscamâ? I am not in a position to assess it in detail, but I note the Brax3 phone has a price tag of $295, and it doesnât make any sense to compare it with a Pixel phone, does it? Correct me if otherwise but the Pixel is a Google product, and therefore one would need to put a custom ROM on it, right? I am sure that is doable, but it is extra work, and an article I read in Toms Guide made it clear that, even for a tech journo, putting de-goolged OS onto a phone like that can be challenging. It is âpreorderâ so who knows how well it will or will not work, but other de-googled phones are quite exxy in comparison. I have not even considered using one, so no idea about relatively functionality.
What do you consider ridiculously wrong about his take on NPUs?
Referring to another poster here, Braxman did not say anything about breaking encryption, if that is what you mean, and I didnât say he did.
What he said, as I understand it, was two main points
*That if keyloggers are installed as part of the OS - like MS already has - then that can defeat any end to end encryption as AI on the device already knows everything you typed.
*That AI can scan all content on your device, interpret it, archive it, send it, etc, and you cannot delete that. Or at least there is a dramatic increase in ability to do that. Again, MS already did, right? Windows Recall, which took snapshots of your screen every few seconds. I gather that is Off - for now. Just like Apple scanning all cloud images for, say, CSAM, which is also Off - for now. Now that is just on your phone. Yes, maybe you can turn these sorts of AI assisted features off, but maybe not, and you wonât know.
That is just my summary of a more lengthy discussion, but it all seems quite cogent to me, and as it is just presenting facts and analysis, I donât even see the scope for calling it Scam.
Anyway, thanks for the input and I am taking on board anything said, for consideration. Personally, I will leave it with this post, as my experience with discussion forums is that if there is too much disputation, no matter how constructive, eventually a moderator gets angry. And usually at me for having âsatiable curtiosityâ and asking lots of questions
Judging by this thread, however, Braxman is not the only person very concerned about AI.
Alright, I will disobey what I said.
Anon: Yes, I get it. Brax.me fails to do what he said. But it is FREE. So there is no scam. Incompetent, yes, but that is not a scam. So where is he scamming anyone?
Yes, I am curious to know if/why he is wrong, but so far your point about NPUS is the only example anyone has adduced. BUT he did not say that. Which I know personally as I watched his videos. You have said a couple of times he makes things up. Is there something else? I am not asking people to debunk his stuff point by point, but perhaps one incorrect thing he actually did say, would be helpful.
Not sure in what way I have âpeddled his nonsenseâ.
NBTV and Braxman are suggesting exactly the same things and they are both peddling fear, along with many others, for the reason already stated. None of it actually matters, unless you are breaking laws.
So if money are not involved itâs not a scam?
How do you call a privacy advocate that point to a free service that should be E2E and it is not?
It could have very bad consequences for someoneâs privacy using that service.
I donât understand how could anyone have any trust in anything he says just for that.
A scam is taking money or other things of value, by fraud.
So, no, offering a free but sub standard service is not a scam.
In his case, his E2EE service is free, and he suggests other ones anyway.
I agree that if someone makes an untrue claim about a product, that would absolutely be a reason to doubt other similar claims. But his videos are barely about promoting his products at all. 99% of it is discussion about privacy issues with âbig techâ products. Issues which are very real, and well explained and discussed, IMO.
Niek: if he is selling insecure phones while claiming them they are secure, that could be considered a scam. But even Anon does not seem to be making that claim. Rather that they are low grade hardware with better alternatives. OTOH, they seem fairly cheap by comparison to other de-googled phones. So which is better value, I have no idea.
