Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> GrapheneOS is anti-user-freedom.

This is a really, really poor-quality take.

> complaints of this nature get inane drivel responses of "lol just fork Graphene"

It’s a fork of AOSP, which you can just…use.

 help



Uh, no. Shaming a "take" is just tone policing. Owners should own the hardware along with the software both.

Its only since the smartphone era (2008) with locked down shit devices has this view changed. And people challenging this are somehow defective, tone policed, shamed, or likewise.

GrapheneOS users are treated as 'rooted phones', at the exact same time tools that would attack and prevent corporate surveillance (xprivacy, etc) are withheld cause they would involve root.

Even this thread is full of a lot of anti-owner hand wavey shit that amounts to 'we don't trust our users, and fork you'. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/18953-why-the-stigma-agains...


> Shaming a “take” is just tone policing

No, that’s called sharing your opinion.

You shared your opinion, someone else shared there’s that just so happened to be “I disagree with you” and suddenly that’s some type of censorship? Nobody is shaming you, either.


> prevent corporate surveillance

Leave the abusive relationship with those entities. Don’t lay this at the feet of the GrapheneOS Project.

If you read their FAQ, you’ll see how limited the OS actually is in retaining your privacy if you still insist on using these providers that don’t respect you.

Said another way: stop trying to solve human problems with technical means.

and definitely stop trying to get others to do it for you for free.

Or, continue: I’m not a cop.


Nobody’s shaming you, reddit refugee.

It is a common userspace decision to lock things to userspace. It’s good hygiene.

If you want less-secure software, use AOSP or one of its many forks.

You’re not defective: you just have different needs and threat model,

and you’re harassing and degrading the public image of a project that’s opinionated in a very welcome way by folks in the security community - especially those who value stability and usability.


"It is a common userspace decision to lock things to userspace"

Yes, running in userspace for the majority of tasks is good hygiene.

Preventing the user from ever escalating beyond that layer on their own devices, however, is restricting their freedom to control their device. When that happens with tractors, cars or other gadgets that's considered anti-user. The same attitude should extend to phones.


You can wipe the device and reinstall whatever at any time.

You have complete control of the device.

You choose to lock certain things when using GrapheneOS. That’s their security model.

If you want to argue that, go study it and argue that.

If your threat model is different, if your desired security model is different, then: it’s not for you, use one of many other options.

Like all software projects, it doesn’t necessarily exist for you - or anyone specifically.

It’s not harming you for it to exist.


[flagged]


Hey, stop wrecking my favorite community with non-debates, it’s done better here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: