I hope this will be received with the same good faith it was written in. I’m thankful to GrapheneOS and all its teachers and supporters. Happy New Year!
Cheers,
TPD
6 Likes
Interesting article. But I do not feel it presents the debate’s core. Phones are not burgers, digital identity is a core of modern world, and it is built around phones. Phones are also hard to turn private, but many people’s lives depend on it being so. Unlike burgers, which are heavily licensed and regulated, private phones are the wild west of snake oil salesmen.
I would take the liberty of giving you the analogy of banks, where it is not a desire for flavor that makes customer choose, but the value of their valuables.
Now there are only two major banks for depositing stuff, with one directly owning all its branches and other having franchises that use it’s branding and core software. For users, first offers convenience and the other offers choice. But both are prone to have CCTVs in their branches. Some users dislike this and others call it a feature. The first bank is very secretive about their workings, which some users dislike.
Now a third option comes in, which has not CCTV in the branches and uses open practices of the second bank. They also have additional security outside their bank and they offer separators for keeping even your own items reasonably separate. Some users are obviously afraid of switching as they might have a higher fee than other franchises of second bank. It is also hard to trust. After all, a bank is a critical place.
But then some seedy salesmen stand outside and say if users keep valuables with them they will be just as safe, and they will even let them customize the banks building better than current best practices allow (like creating a tunnel under the safe if they wish to). They say the banks are all out to get them because they cannot build a tunnel under the vault there. The gullible users fall for the fear being peddled.
The users should stay away from them since the original purpose of the bank is to allow you keep stuff safe, and everything else is unrelated and tangential. Arguing in favor of these seedy salesmen will hurt the customers who think they are just as safe, and will also take away potential funds from the third bank, reducing their capacity.
I think it is actively harming people when you tell them to start with XYZ when the XYZ is not close the serving the original purpose they need it for. The time wasted on non-solutions is better spent on educating self on actual solutions.
I also object to “GrapheneOS crowd”, as if their assertions are subjective opinion parroted by individuals, when they are mostly objective truths. Do you also call people “Modern Medicine crowd” and ask people to allow grifters to get people to use magic crystals because they are cheaper and have more color options and users can eventually shift to real medicine? This creating a monolith and soap boxing on them seems slightly off color to me.
2 Likes
I like your analogy but the presentation of the situation can be a bit more fair. The popular options are generally not seedy salespeople but probably normal people who probably don’t have the focus/wisdom/depth of experience/industry connectedness in banking and financial security, but believe enough (or are financially motivated enough) in providing an alternative to the big banks without acknowledging the failings in their own knowledge.
will also take away potential funds from the third bank, reducing their capacity.
There was at least one seemingly competent service provider before Option 3, and at least one other closed down after O3 that was honest about not being able to provide the same security but adopted similar practices (separators, no CCTV). In general, alternatives can indeed be done fine. However, I think I understand that you’re mainly referring to the funds lost as a result of misrepresentation/false advertising.
Generally I agree that education is key here for both the smaller financial service providers and for the potential customers. I don’t envy anyone that has the privilege of giving advice.
2 Likes
I kind of started my privacy journey with LineageOS because I didn’t know GrapheneOS and had a Samsung. I later got to know GOS and started to use it. I guess that a lot of people had a similar experience.
I agree that alternative Android distributions at least help to get to know something else than the duopoly, they at least contribute to pique people’s curiosity about alternative OS.
1 Like
Fair point about ‘crowd’ in a way, but on the other hand, I seem to mostly get the same response from GrapheneOS proponents. I like the responding analogy a lot - thanks for that.
The point you ignore and I think many will continue to ignore is the core message in the analogy: the blind spot about what life looks like when all you know is Google and Apple and think that is normal. This is in my personal experience a persistent blind spot in the GrapheneOS community and one many cannot seem to see beyond.
1 Like
Awesome read, I hope this gets understood! I think the attitude of GrapheneOS makes the entry for people unnecessarily difficult
1 Like