• cm0002@suppo.fiOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    And just as trustworthy as devices that are equivalent to desktop Hardware with UEFI, IntelME, etc.

    So you mean like…99% of all hardware in the world? Lol

    If you’re that hardcore into privacy or your threat model justifies it, then grapheneos isn’t for you because you’re already well prepared to make significant compromise and/or expense to pursue that goal.

    GrapheneOS is more about leveling up more common people’s privacy

    Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good

    • IceFoxX@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      No, what I’m saying is that it’s bullshit to argue that Pixel was used for security reasons. It should have been created from the outset not just for Pixel… As soon as that’s the case, or planned, suddenly people are demanding backdoors… With Pixel, the question probably didn’t arise… Because Google would NEVER release a phone that is secure for the user. What I’m saying is that graphene offers more security outside of Pixel. (Refers to US backdoors. Not to others.)

    • IceFoxX@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Especially lol… With Huawei, who knows what kind of uproar there was until they were completely banned and attempts were made to destroy them… Were they banned because they didn’t have the backdoors installed as specified by the US? Couldn’t the security vulnerabilities be mentioned because it was about the lack of their own US government backdoors? China also engages in espionage, but it is less able to use it directly against its citizens.