other8026

> I have played this game many times with Android apps

I haven't had this issue myself and fortunately GrapheneOS has its scopes features and more are coming, so it's still possible to use a more private and secure OS without having to cave in like you're saying. For example, WhatsApp might think it needs access to contacts and GrapheneOS users can let the app think it has access to everything while it really doesn't.

Also, what makes you think that apps that demand too much will never exist on other OSes? You seem to be blaming AOSP for app developers' behavior.

> Since I use the PureOS and Mobian distros (which are Debian derivatives) on my Linux phones, I can have a lot more confidence that I'm not installing anything that will harm me or spy on me.

Again, it doesn't make sense to judge entire OSes based on your experience with apps. The argument doesn't make any sense. You can't say that an entire OS is private and secure because the apps you use aren't trying to invade your privacy or exploit security holes.

> Yes, there are companies making AOSP derivatives which have good business models that respect and protect the user, such as Murena, iodé and Volla

Murena is plagued with issues, their OS rolls back privacy, is far behind on updates, they were sending data to OpenAI without informing users first, their cloud services were down for months and at one point mixed up user IDs and users' data was being synced to the wrong devices. They're hardly a good example.

iodéOS and Volla have the same problems with their OS as /e/OS.

> I have a personal beef

Members of the GrapheneOS project (myself included) call these projects out because they're misleading their users. We believe that people have the right to privacy and it's awful to see people being duped into using OSes that aren't actually private.

It's also ridiculous that we are attacking anyone. Facts aren't attacks and it's ironic that you name Murena and iodéOS in the same paragraph and accuse _us_ of attacking other projects.

Gael Duval has attacked GrapheneOS many times. He has called us toxic and violent and he has even attacked our supporters by calling them idiots and zealots. He even said that devices with strong privacy and security are for criminals and pedophiles. It's insane that someone in his position would even say such a thing.

iodéOS is or was at least partnered with someone who has also attacked GrapheneOS regularly, Robert Braxman. He has also insulted members of our project. He has also told clear lies about GrapheneOS on his channel in order to promote his less private and secure devices. He is a scam artist with a YouTube following.

In short, it doesn't affect you. Even if you tried installing the app that enforces the changes on GrapheneOS, it wouldn't have the necessary privileges to do anything.

What does GrapheneOS have to do with the post or the website? We didn't make the website nor did we help with its messaging. We agreed to be listed on the website, but we describe the changes differently when it comes up in our community spaces, when asked via email email, or otherwise.

Although many people do say that there's an issue with banking apps on GrapheneOS, I don't believe that's actually the case. Many banking apps work just fine. In cases where other apps refuse to run, GrapheneOS has compatibility toggles. After toggling those on, many banking apps that complain start working again.

In other cases, banks add Play Integrity checks to their apps, which is a more complex subject. In short, many banking apps check for the basic integrity verdict, which GrapheneOS can get. In other cases, the checks are not implemented properly, and GrapheneOS has a toggle which often gets those apps to work. Finally, a very small number of banking apps require the strong integrity verdict and the apps will refuse to run on GrapheneOS.

Although there are no statistics about this, it does seem that a majority of banking apps work or can be made to work with different compatibility toggles.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I literally just said that GrapheneOS isn't affected.

The narrative that GrapheneOS is so focused on security that it affects usability, especially given the context, is nonsense. The change that's being discussed here doesn't affect GrapheneOS or other non-GMS operating systems. The only affected OSes are the ones that install Google apps with privileged permissions.

If you want to switch to something else, go ahead. GrapheneOS is still a better overall choice.

Not at all. The app that is enforcing the change is a privileged Google app. Even if someone tried installing it on GrapheneOS, it wouldn't be able to do anything like remove apps, block installation, or disable apps.

They pointed out privacy issues and you're still claiming that GrapheneOS is security first? Location leaks are a privacy issue, for example.

GrapheneOS doesn't have such a narrow focus. As we keep saying, GrapheneOS prioritizes privacy, security, and Android app compatibility. Given those three things:

Privacy: microG's leaks and failure to implement other checks and there's arguably no real gain in privacy since the Sandboxed Google Play approach means Google Play Services and Store don't have privileged permissions.

Security: microG needs privileged permissions to work properly and can also download Google binaries and runs them in that privileged context, depending on settings

App compatibility: It's an incomplete reimplementation. Even microG's GitHub says as much.

Why would GrapheneOS take so many steps back just because the only real compelling argument in favor of microG is "Google bad"?

You do realize that people use the flag feature all the time, right? People have abused the feature to remove our comments in the past too. It's beyond unacceptable to accuse us, without basis, that we're flagging all of your comments.

You are accusing us of "attacking" other groups when we're repeatedly pulled into conversations and we give objective answers and respond to misinformation about GrapheneOS. We have every right to correct misinformation about GrapheneOS. We have every right to defend ourselves against harassment.

Objective facts aren't "attacks." Why are you misrepresenting what we say? Isn't it better if people can make informed decisions?

We were pulled into this conversation by people who were attacking GrapheneOS. We didn't want to participate in this conversation. GrapheneOS doesn't recommend or support microG. The topic of this entire post has nothing to do with us.

Look at ForHackernews' comments and you'll understand why we counter them.

What's toxic about responding to people attacking GrapheneOS?

The point of GrapheneOS is privacy, period, not something as narrow as simply deGoogling.

GrapheneOS isn't a single person. One or two of us responding to misinformation on socials doesn't mean work isn't getting done. Unfortunately there are people who spend a lot of their own time making new accounts and attacking GrapheneOS instead of doing something more productive with their own time.

As a member of the GrapheneOS team, I can say you're very incorrect.

Within the project, there's a lot of discussion and collaboration. Daniel is the most famous of all of us because he started the project, but we all work together and value each other's opinions. You can see the same in the issue tracker and other places as well. All of us, Daniel included, are happy to consider other ideas or approaches.

Instead of making some broad accusation about someone, you should be more specific. I hope that your bitterness isn't because one of us rejected a feature request or explained why our team implemented something in a specific way that you disagree with.

Sandboxed Google Play isn't installed by default, so users have a choice if they want to use it or not. Many don't.

GrapheneOS is more deGoogled than alternatives, so if you're thinking privacy = deGoogling, then GrapheneOS is a good option.

But you seem to be under the impression that microG improves privacy. That's not the case when you look at the big picture. Consider why people need microG in the first place. It's basically there to pretend to be Google Play Services for apps that rely on Google Play Services. Which apps are those? Apps with Google libraries in them.

So, pretend apps with Google libraries are an "app & mini Google Play Services", and the breakdown is like this:

---

App & mini Google Play Services = access is restricted, like other regular apps.

App & mini Google Play Services + Sandboxed Google Play (unprivileged) = virtually the same access as above

App & mini Google Play Services + microG (privileged) = Google has the same access as the situations above, but with worse app compatibility, worse security (especially because of privileged access), and worse privacy (leaks).

The hostility is one-sided. I went back through old posts and found that while people on the GrapheneOS side (before my time) were sharing _objective facts_, and Murena's started responding with personal attacks.

GrapheneOS's approach is far different from microG's. It's not about rebuilding everything from scratch, it's about making Google Play Services behave as a non-privileged app.