• IceFoxX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

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

    But of course, an even worse data octopus is bringing a backdoor-free cell phone to market… how naive can you be… Uhh, now they’re moving away from pixels… Suddenly there are campaigns against the security of graphene… That there was nothing there before is absolutely not surprising and trustworthy…

    • cm0002@suppo.fiOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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.)