What about the penultimate paragraph?
You seem to agrue in favour of other alternative operating systems over stock OS when GrapheneOS is not an option and I believe that to be bad and misinformed advice.
If grapheneOS is not there for you just stick with the default operating system, preferably iOS.
1 Like
I use GrapheneOS as my daily driver. I got there via those other OSs. I gained more understanding of what makes Graphene good precisely because I tried those other ones. I tried those other OSs because the barrier felt lower. That is my true, personal experience. How is that misinformed?
Your personal experience may not be a good representation. Sorry.
The main point of my story, by the way, is not that.
Well at least you seem to argue in favour of exprimenting with these other OSes, which we know to have a bad security model, and therefore discourage this practise actively. It’s fine if we don’t agree.
I don’t think that “trying different flavors” is something to take into account. The thing is you’re telling it as if “they try to make devices more private,” but do they succeed? This latter point is a technical aspect and many experts argue that they don’t (not only because of the absence of security patches or having old kernels)
On the other hand, as other colleagues mention, perhaps “by trying these other flavors” they might come across GrapheneOS (or iPhones, an alternative pointed out by the GrapheneOS team as a good private and secure alternative). The issue is that they might not do so and end up running them on their main devices.
The Ubuntu OS for mobile, etc. seems like a separate topic to me.
1 Like
The main point is that there seems to be a general tone-deafness in the pro-Graphene community. As a privacy advocate who is trying to bridge the gap between regular users and parents and those ‘in the know’, I think this tone-deafness is damaging. Graphene is a fantastic product, but the hard-line approach of its proponents puts potential new people off. Justifying a shitty tone by saying ‘we are on the right side of science and knowledge; those who disagree or have questions are anti-intellectual, like anti-vaxxers’ is quite insulting and off-putting.
I have not have as many likes on a post as I have on this one. One reader responded right after publication stating: ‘Good luck with the responses. The only reason I don’t use Graphene is the attitude of the community.’
Think about it. I’m on your side, and yet I feel attacked, just for offering a different perspective on how many people might find their way to GrapheneOS.
7 Likes
The question is who is tone-death here 
It is in no way an attack, we just fully diagree here. (Speaking from the users here on this forum).
If it is any validation, the point you were trying to make is playing out in this thread.
Oh well, this isn’t a good reason (even if valid) to NOT use something.
I think it must also be under consideration that GrapheneOS itself isn’t the be all and end all (and the lead developers would be the first to admit that). Granted the project values security above all else, but at the end of the day, for as many security mitigations and solutions in place, there are just as many attack vectors & attack surfaces that lurk beneath, for which GrapheneOS is as much dependant on the OEMs / Silicon Vendors / OSS projects as other ROMs. And those attacks are even more devastating in their compromise.
All of that said, GrapheneOS definitely holds itself to a higher standard & meets it, to the extent it is possible, given their finances, team size, & ability. The same can be said of other ROMs (that are genuinely trying).
Touché. As a lifelong Android user fanboi, I am coming around to the fact that regular users should simply purchase an iPhone and be done with it.
1 Like
GrapheneOS is the only way i am justifiying myself not to go iPhone.
Your point on hardware security makes somewhat sense but again that is also the reason why GrapheneOS only supports pixels as their hardware security is generally believed to be superior over other android OEMs.
2 Likes
I still don’t understand the original writeup, but from what I’ve read here the real issue is the nuance regarding this.
The (Android) alternatives to GrapheneOS are (in this case) seen and/or portrayed as simply different or less good but still available options, when in reality they shouldn’t even be on the table since they are actively harmful to users.
9 Likes
Long-winded analogies like this are exhausting. Especially when the point isn’t explained. Just say what you mean.
Anyone replying is also bringing assumptions about what “burger town” was supposed to mean. No one is on the same page. That’s a problem when it’s a subject people care about and will want to reply.
Since you clarified the point I’ll reply to that, instead of humoring the burger analogy:
I disagree. I think GrapheneOS and their community generally strike the proper tone. They are willing to draw clear boundaries between what is secure and what isn’t and explain why. I would agree that can come across as abrasive or overbearing. But I don’t see it as a big problem.
I also want to reply to this:
No one said those who disagree with GrapheneOS are anti-intellectual like anti-vaxxers. There was a comparison made between bad-faith criticism of GrapheneOS and bad-faith criticism of vaccines. That does not suggest that all criticism of GrapheneOS is bad-faith. I think your statement here says more about your over-sensitivity to pro-GrapheneOS people explaining themselves than it does about a problematic pattern in how they behave.
I don’t think you’ve been “attacked” in this thread at all. In fact the replies are uncharacteristically professional and thoughtful for this forum. At worst I think people don’t like your analogy or writing. I hope you see my reply as candid and good-faith and not an attack
5 Likes
Personally, if I try to steelman their argument and breeze past a bit of the fluff/context:
- There is value in educating people about the possibility and benefits of devices that allow unlocking the bootloader and running an alternate OS, or the potential joy of simply experimenting with an alternate OS.
- The most accessible way to introduce yourself to this potential on mobile devices will be whatever is already available or easily accessible.
Both of these don’t necessarily have direct relevance to GrapheneOS. It can actually satisfy both endeavours above, but it is also aiming to be a regular OS that anyone can use (even preinstalled) providing better privacy/security than existing preinstalled options. The main issue is that that latter goal/standard that GrapheneOS works to meet also involves other projects that claim similar intentions with subpar results.
The thread/responses have gone in a disappointing (chastising) direction because the bulk of the article most times presents these other projects as ‘legitimate’ for the purpose of the latter goal stated (map healthiness/reliability to privacy/security). It’s predictable but I think PrivacyGuides can do better than that.
2 Likes
I was hoping you would give it the same good faith I assumed when I wrote my response. I explicitly did not call “anyone who disagrees” as anything. I think healthy disagreement by people who know the subject matter is essential for rigor and honesty.
Saying “GrapheneOS does not protect clipboard from applications and only shows a notification when clipboard is invoked, which is worse for privacy than what iOS does” is criticism accepted by both developers and community openly.
Saying “You should ask people to try e OS or Lineage to help them transition to GrapheneOS” is not a criticism, it is acknowledgement of this pathway being valid, and e OS and Lineage being pit stops on path to private phone OS, which is wrong if you talk to anyone involved in security or privacy community who is an expert (not commentator or enthusiast). They are not an option.
It is exactly the situation with PGP. Cryptographers keep asking people to use something better, people keep ignoring them and then get irritated when they are called out for harming end users. Hoping a proposed solution is a valid solution does not make it so.
My point was explicitly about people who are not familiar with the field trying to peddle solutions in a domain. I do think that if I ask an engineer about building safety and then ignore their opinion because it is not aligned with what I think building safety should be, then go out and advertise the building I built as safe, that is misleading and dangerous. It is impossible for the end users to know what am actually secure system is, and leading them to “not an option” is playing with their trust and anti intellectual and similar to anti vax ideology is a nutshell.
I hope disagreements happen, but only when they are actually disagreements on solid ideas backed by evidence. Misleading ideas are not disagreements, they are attempts to manufacture agreement on something that would usually not get consensus from people in the know, by leveraging the doubt laymen have in the current system.
If an academic makes a statement about how the plumbing community is censoring voices while they advocate for lead pipes and then unsurprisingly get criticised, is it their point playing out or is it common sense? Prediction of reaction does not make the action correct or insightful does it?
Then they should keep trying by marking it as alpha or beta or stop making sensational claims, instead of demanding their best efforts which falls below the current standards should be treated on the same level. Appreciating effort and recommending them are unrelated ideas. And remember they/their proponents keep trying to prop them as viable alternative, leading to comparison. Users are not their experiment labs when most users cannot actually understand and consent to what the experiment is essentially asking them to do.
1 Like
I agree.
That said, any complex project like an OS can always be marked “alpha” / “beta” in strictly security terms, as there’s still work to be done, even if a lot has been.
True, if these ROMs reduce the security level otherwise provided by stock ROMs. I’m not sure if all ROMs (ex: ParanoidAndroid) are as bad, though I’m not privy to their mods nor release cadence as you might be. Which other ROMs, would you say, strive to keep security as #1 priority?
Thank you!
Regular users who can afford an iPhone.
1 Like
Far too many people here misquoting other users to win an argument.
1 Like
what were we expecting with the Privacy Guides community anyways
1 Like
I don’t know what you expect. Does it bother you that people don’t agree and express their point of view? Why do you get into a forum if it’s not to dialogue and debate? I don’t see that anyone has been disrespected.
6 Likes