Thread 106404405

Is your privacy really better served by some schizo Android variant or is it just placebo?

>>106404405 (OP)
Yes

>>106404405 (OP)
We don't know actually, there are a lot of things promised and the way the community acts is concerning. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a repeat of an0m.

>hexagon logo
interesting

>>106404432
it is.. but im still using it. im not doing anything wrong righr fed?

>>106404405 (OP)
depends in threat model.
Severe cases shouldn't be using smartphone at all. But for most people, having neutered tracking is good enough.
Graphene self purports to be the best option out there, but honestly even using aosp projects like lineage with google play services is way better than oem roms. Since oem roms install lots of bloat as system apps, can't be uninstalled or stopped from running in the background or calling home.
Anyway, again, depends on the threat model, and OP is, as always, a faggot.

>>106404432
I used a Graphene OS pic because that's kinda the most known, but my question isn't limited to it, could be Calyx or Lineage as well. I'm just wondering if you're actually significantly limiting the amount of data you give away to Jewgle and other advertisers by installing a third party ROM.

>>106404464
Yeah but Lineage OS NEVER claims to be security to the max which Graphene OS does and what other solution did the same you guessed it an0m.

>>106404480
Fucking mongoloids with ESL reading comprehension ITT I swear to God. I'm not comparing ROMs between each others for fuck's sake, I'm asking if privacy-oriented, or third party ROMs in general, actually make good on their promises to limit the amount of data being extracted from you and sent to Google, or if they're just peddling a bunch of placebo features that make you feel like a smart privacy-minded boy when really you're getting datamined just as much as auntie Ruth who bought her Galaxy phone off Craigslist and never even bothered to reset it before starting to use it.

>>106404512
> Diarrhea meltdown post
You focus on things that don't matter, all what matters is having little to no identifiers as possible. The grapheneOS people focus on cybersecurity and the titan security chip which has an identifier and talks back to HQ. most AOSP Roms are sufficient as long as it doesn't have GMS which is used to profile you using the IMEI, Google ID, Device MAC address and stalk you around the internet & real life, so they can sell you to advertisers.
I have wasted to much time with a simpleton like you, please kill yourself, you worthless piece of shit, the world would be a better place with less like you.

>>106404816
Forgot the pic

GrapheneOS will fundamentally have flaws because the hardware is backdoored. This is why you should have backdoored software too and be completely in the palm of google's tracking empire.

>>106404405 (OP)
Graphene is dead. Graphene remains dead. and google has killed it

>>106404405 (OP)
Daniel Micay himself said that iphones are one of the best choices from a security perspective, GrapheneOS closing the gap. The reason is the close working together of hardware and software, which is very seldom done in case of Android devices - pixels being the sole exception that care about it, that’s why they are the only supported device.

Not much point in buying some fancy lock to your door, if there is a window open next to it.

Also, ios has a very locked down secure mode for the ultra paranoid.


See this review from Golem.de.
https://www.golem.de/news/grapheneos-ein-gehaertetes-android-ohne-google-bitte-1912-145383.html

>>106404882
>The reason is the close working together of hardware and software
Doesn't that just make the whole device a complete blackbox over which you have no control? Sure it makes the device more secure from attackers, but it also means Apple itself can do whatever the fuck they feel like with the data on it and all their claims of privacy are basically "just trust us bro".

>>106404882
okay glowie I will now use iphones (pwned by latest stringarray or w/e its called)

>>106405152
if you're this schizo, the only thing that can save you just checking each outbound packet that your phone sends

>>106404882
>GOLEM.de
(((i know what you are)))

>>106405191
Don't threaten me with a good time

>>106405152
our boy louie don't fuck with grapheos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1x1Dy-ej4

>>106405191
Not really, the whole point of third party Android ROMs is that they're open source and therefore auditable. Honestly the "attack surface" isn't that much of a concern to the average Joe, because who the fuck is trying to hack into your personal phone to steal your porn browsing history? Whereas the actual company that sold you your phone is 100% trying to datamine you to sell you as many dragon dildos as possible, so running an OS that can reasonably be audited to confirmed that it's not sending (too much of) your data back to HQ is actually valuable.

>>106405224
Louis moved away from Graphene because of a personal beef with Micay who is a schizo (which everyone already knew anyway). It doesn't have much to do with Graphene itself.

>>106405252
GrapheneOS can attest to the device's security. The question is whether the app developers will trust such an attestation. Will they put money, time and effort into evaluating and trusting GrapheneOS? Of course not. They will just decide to trust nobody except Google and Apple.

This is the future. We'll be discriminated against. Can't even log into an account from an "unauthorized device". Their servers will just refuse to talk to our phones if they can't cryptographically verify that we have not "tampered with" them. We'll be refused service straight up unless our computers are straight up owned by corporations.

This so called "integrity checking" is meant to protect the corporations from us, not the other way around. It's so we can't do things like hack our way around their "policies".

>>106404405 (OP)
>>106404405 (OP)
Take a look at the available information and form your own conclusions.

>>106405152
>>106405171
>>106405202
GrapheneOS is a dangerous cult.
https://www.onli-blogging.de/2546/GrapheneOS-ist-ein-gefaehrlicher-Kult.html

>>106405274
No one doubts this but that's got nothing to do with this thread.

>>106405267
the hack around their policies is to not use them. Its as simple as that
>we'll be discriminated against
I'm not jewish

If anyone else is from Israel, how do you get pikud haoref (פיקוד העורף) alerts for your city without giving the app access to precise location all the time?

>>106404405 (OP)
It is mostly a placebo, because the big chunk of datamining happens not at the OS level, but on the network/app level.

>>106405322
Well, there are examples such as Yuh and Swissquote which are using Play Integrity API and also using hardware attestation to specifically allow GrapheneOS. The latter is in the process of implementing what's needed right now.
We also expect Google's Play Integrity API to inevitably be ruled as anti-competitive, which it is.

>>106404405 (OP)
GrapheneOS is security over privacy, Calyx is privacy over security (and has a bit more mainstream appeal with MicroG, supporting push messaging and location services etc).
GrapheneOS has also pioneered a lot of security measures, a lot of which have been added to Android proper (if you see their feature log, a lot of it says "removed because it was introduced in Android"). I wonder if that wouldn't have been the case without them pioneering it.
Finally, the big guys make a lot of mistakes too. Remember the time when you could sudo on macOS with a blank password :) Or that other time when they showed your actual password instead of the password hint. AFAIK, Graphene and Calyx have never made any mistakes even close to that severity.

>be israeli
>stand up against the state by toggling precise location off
>get crushed by rocket debris

>>106404816
>all what matters is having little to no identifiers as possible.

They can and will create identifiers through correlation.

>>106404432
Anom was a closed-source fork of GrapheneOS. It had the exact same boot animation (just with changed text) and pinged time.grapheneos.org over HTTPS (same mechanism GrapheneOS uses for datetime sync).
If CIA glow-in-the-dark niggers trust to use it as a base for their "unhackable" psyop that was undetected for years, and no one managed to break into their OS (except them), then it's probably fine for you as well.

>>106405335
I mostly prefer using many areas-of-intrest as opposed to having location on because of battery, performance, and untrusted apps (like moovit and they DID leak user data)
While this isn't a full solution this may help most of the time and you could turn location on if you plan going somewhere far

Then again, it's not like these sirens are any quieter than a jet engine so I guess that also works (it did for 60 years)

ever watched your android phone's traffic?
it's probably a fucking 2:1 ratio of google server traffic to actual user-intended traffic

>>106404458
>User-Agent: Browser
what the fuck is the usecase for this shit? This troonware only blocks useragents that start with "Mozilla" and so is trivial to bypass.
and even if it blocked everything, you can precompute the challenge for every website for essentially no cost
>https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/anubis.html

>>106404458
>Severe cases shouldn't be using smartphone at all
True, although sometimes not having a smartphone actually makes authorities suspicious about you, which is a problem especially in some authoritarian states like Russia. So you have to _have_ a smartphone with believable activity on it, but also you have to have another more secure device that is never seen by anyone ever. Or just only ever do private stuff over VNC or something.
But yeah, I've been reading horror stories about people getting 15+ year jail sentences for doing "wrong" things on their smartphones on a daily basis now...

>>106404405 (OP)
why is installing this pos so tedious

>>106405360
>Calyx
>pauses all updates because a dev left with signing keys
>https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-community/
BTFO. GrapheneOS and LineageOS are the only ROMs that should be even considered.
Calyx and especially /e/ OS are the real psyops. One-to-one copy of Freedom Phone psyop, just in a different dressing.

>>106405497
>But yeah, I've been reading horror stories about people getting 15+ year jail sentences for doing "wrong" things on their smartphones on a daily basis now...

Don't use your phone for "wrong" things.

>>106405360
GrapheneOS, lacking MicroG in the default install, is more private than CalyxOS. Keeping Google out of the loop entirely is necessary for true privacy.

>>106405569
Like I said, Calyx is the real psyop.
You can tell the psyops apart because they will always overspill and offer you an "ecosystem" or "experience". Real software stays the fuck in their own lane.
Calyx literally ships with a "free" VPN and encourages you to use it so they get all your data. It literally could not glow brighter. Even Apple is not this obvious when it comes to data collection, they at least make you pay for their honeypot.

How do you survive with Graphene when basically all of the apps that matter require GMS or Play Integrity, like banking apps or government ID (often via banking apps here in Europe at least)?

>>106405531
Liar! It's as easy as installing Instagoy!

>>106405569
>>106405596
On CalyxOS you do get an option to disable microG when setting it up for the first time, see https://calyxos.org/features/microg/#1-microg-disabled
microG being disabled but present is still enough for some apps to work, which makes sense given that you can disable Google Play Services on the stock OS.

>>106405600
Well you can install MicroG, at which point you have Google software on your phone again. MicroG lets you spoof some of the data so it’s “less worse” but still.

>>106405607
read >>106405535
>calyx suspended all updates because a dev left with one of their signing keys
and >>106405596
>ships with a "free" VPN honeypot that glows brighter than the feds
also idgaf about microg. anything that hard requires google services is bad software and i will use alternatives instead of trying to force it to work.

>>106405607
If Google, low-effort scam apps or being profiled by apps are your only adversary, then that's true. If random threats on Internet or APTs pwning your phone, or being forensic-proof are part of your threat model, then Calyx is strictly worse than stock.

>>106405615
Hardware identifiers aren't accessible to user installed apps. ANDROID_ID is a per-app-per-profile random ID. Apps don't need ANDROID_ID to identify that it's the same install due to immense fingerprint surface. If you installed the app in another profile, it would have a different ANDROID_ID, but it would still potentially be able to fingerprint it as the same device based on many things like settings. GrapheneOS does have planned features to improve these things but it's not nearly as simple as making ANDROID_ID per-app-install or making the MediaDRM ID more randomized than the current per-app random value (it was meant to be like ANDROID_ID but they make a mistake that's hard to fix without breaking compatibility so we need a toggle).

>>106405399
Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but I always thought it was interesting that Graphene OS places so much blind trust in a proprietary black box security chip from Google that they pinky-promised to open source but never did.

>>106404405 (OP)
why not just use lineageos or calyxos? why be so autistic about it?

>>106405649
Because they are a software project. When you're only concerning yourself with software, you have to pick some hardware and move on.
Going down the rabbit hole of secure hardware leads you down a slippery slope of eventually needing to create your own chips. And that's basically impossible these days for anybody smaller than Google or Samsung. So you do some research, pick the best you can, and hope for the best.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

>>106405668
We are talking about hardware here so ultimately you need to trust some manufacturer, software algorithms don't help.
With SEV-SNP and Intel TDX I think it's possible to build a hardware platform that doesn't require the user to trust the OEM although they still need to trust at least one large American tech company that controls the root of trust.

But I don't think this is ever gonna happen for consumer devices. AFAIK it's only sorta kinda happened for any real-world platforms at all (but maybe someone can correct me).

Ultimately if your threat model includes Google as a potential adversary, and you are not in control of nuclear weapons, you are gonna have to make some serious sacrifices to achieve security IMO. Smartphones are out. (Actually, I guess if you trust China you have a way forward).

>>106405668
Yeah, this to me is the sketchiest point about Graphene.

>>106405668
How is it a black box? You can get the firmware trivially.

>>106405707
>hope for the best.

hope.
hope.
HOPE.
C O P E.

PRAISE THE CULT!

>>106405668
>>106405714
It's the opposite. They have a clear description and rationale why they only support Pixels.
Security ranges from mildly to greately worse on all other Android devices. For example Fairphone uses publicly known testing private keys to sign their secure boot, making it essentially pointless. Any "private" or "secure" ROM that supports Fairphone is either incompetent or a psyop.

>>106405668
OpenTitan has open silicon (RISC-V) and is capable of open firmware (based on Rust TockOS) and is coming to 2025 Chromebooks. Hopefully a derivative of OpenTitan will ship in future Pixel devices.
Google Pixel hardware provides nested virtualization, enabling a Debian Arm "Linux Terminal" in pKVM/AVF VM, with use of Debian package repos.

>>106405754
This is just conspiratorial fearmongering based on vibes. If pixels somehow phoned home on a hardware level, do you think we wouldn't be able to tell? Do you think we wouldn't see it in our network logs? GrapheneOS supports pixels because they are currently the only devices that fulfill their list of requirements, like an actually usable secure element, hardware memory tagging, etc. They have said and continue to reiterate that they would support other devices that fulfill their requirements and seem to be currently looking into working with OEMs to move away from pixels in the long term. Just saying "you claim to degoogle phones yet the phone you use is a GOOGLE pixel, suspicious" is baseless nonsense.

>>106405786
>For example Fairphone uses publicly known testing private keys to sign their secure boot
So they allow you to install a custom OS without the warning, sounds like a feature.

>>106404405 (OP)
I'd install Graphene OS in a heartbeat on my Pixel if they'd add support for Google call screening and feature like Hold for me. Thise features are why I bought my pixel and it's too much of an inconvenience to go without them now. Spam calls have went down significantly and has saved me a lot of time.

>>106405829
It's not a feature dumbass. Leaked signing key lets you update the OS over fastboot without unlocking bootloader (which normally forces erasing user data). So I can just grab your phone, reboot to fastboot, update with my custom patched ROM that collects your passcode as you unlock it, and gives me a remote shell straight onto your device, with all your data. You'd be none the wiser.

>>106405850
Indian streetshitter.

>>106405850
SimpleMobileTools/Fossify has "silence unknown calls" option. They get redirected to voicemail you can listen later. Problem solved and didn't even need to use AI.

>>106405829
> I don't think they put much trust in it besides using it for storing keys
Ummm. Was this sarcasm that went over my head? Because if not, I have a hard time thinking of anything that requires as much trust as your private key storage.

>>106405824
Exactly. I don't get why people think Google hardware is "backdoored" when it's literally the AOSP reference device. Being a reference device is the entire reason why Pixel (and Nexus before it) was created (due to a lack of quality in other manufacturers). It's all public, otherwise other manufacturers wouldn't know what to base their shitty normie phones off of, and the already shit experience would be even worse.

>>106405882
>>106405922
Your files are encrypted anyways. so doesn't sound like an issue only to FUD grapheneOS fanboys.

>>106405824
Your reply misses the core risk: Google designs the Pixel processors and controls their firmware source, while other OEMs only get closed binaries from chip vendors. That means Google can embed low‑level telemetry directly into processor code, code that runs long before Android or any app boots. Unlike GApps, which need Android to run and whose behavior can be inspected at the OS level, firmware or microcontroller code on the chip can collect and exfiltrate data independently of Android. Those early boot processes don’t show up in Logcats or typical pentests because they execute below the layer those tools observe. So it’s not about vibes, it’s about the architectural reality that processor firmware can perform surveillance out of sight of standard system logs and user‑level monitoring.

>>106405922
It's not "your" private key storage. The private keys are not even stored or used on device. I'm talking about the private keys used to sign and verify the actual OS you are running. Fairphone devs copy-pasted well-known example private keys and burned them into the hardware of the phone, then used it to sign their OS. You can use the same keys to impersonate Fairphone and make any software seem like a legitimate update from Fairphone.

>>106405338
GrapheneOS doesn't send ur real IMEI or any other shit. it just spoofs it to 000000000 so ye

>>106405960
>low-level telemetry
Every hardware component is behind IOMMU. Where would you put the TCP/IP networking stack or software modem stack for data exfiltration? Even if you forget there isn't enough space for one, all hardware components are firewalled from each other and there isn't one central "kitchen sink" that everything flows through (e.g. Intel ME). The firmware shipped is extremely tiny and does nothing other than drive the hardware it's for, nothing more, nothing less. It *can't* do anything else since it doesn't have memory access to anything other than its own area.

>>106405945
Did you even read? It doesn't matter if files are encrypted. I sideload a signed update that waits for you to type your passcode, at which point everything is decrypted and I get my reverse shell + full data exfiltration. This is the exact scenario Secure Boot is designed to prevent, if only you generate your own fucking keys instead of using examples from the internet.

>>106405983
GrapheneOS can't control IMEI since radio communication is implemented in the baseband. It's out of scope. The intended way to kill radio communication is Airplane Mode, which has been verified to correctly disable all radio communication entirely on all supported devices. It persists after reboot and you can manually re-enable Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to keep using them (also persisted) while disabling cellular functionality entirely.

>>106404405 (OP)
grapheneos signals to the glowies that you're a criminal
have fun being gangstalked

Cops say criminals use a Google Pixel with GrapheneOS
https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pixel-3575477/

Cops in Spain think everyone using a Google Pixel must be a drug dealer
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-organized-crime-preferred-phone-3573578/

>>106406033
you can't spoof at the OS level but you can spoof for apps

>>106406010
You’re underestimating low-level telemetry. Google-controlled SoC firmware and auxiliary microcontrollers (sensor hubs, modems, baseband) can run privileged code outside Android’s visibility, with DMA and early boot execution before IOMMU is fully configured. Tiny signed firmwares can still implement covert channels, blob-only updates prevent audit, and out-of-band exfiltration via modem or MCU bypasses OS logs and pentests.

>>106406034
Use a phone case and a tasteful lock/home screen wallpaper. GrapheneOS is visually indistinguishable from any other AOSP-based project 99% of the time. The 1% it's distinguishable you have to look extremely close, e.g. tiny GrapheneOS logo in some system notifications (which you can disable). Most icons are intentionally are generic -- e.g. the system updater uses a generic notification icon.

The remaining differences (i.e. network requests) can be alleviated by changing SUPL/GSPS proxies, time servers, network connection status checks etc. back to their default, unproxied Google counterparts instead of the GrapheneOS proxies. To avoid leaking GrapheneOS use completely, perform these changes before connecting to any network for the first time.

Nobody would look for such subtle differences except under forensic analysis, which already assumes your device has been seized under some other basis.

>>106406068
In that case you shouldn't have used the word "send", which implies network communication. AOSP 13+ also no longer exposes the real IMEI except privileged apps.

>>106406075
Yes it's possible. It's also possible to just put a second CPU in the device and run a full second shadow OS copy that exfiltrates everything. But whatever potential hardware surface exists for telemetry, it will need firmware, firmware that is shipped as part of the OS image, which is thus open for external analysis. The signs would be extremely obvious (large amount of code prior to IOMMU setup, and communication between components that would otherwise not communicate afterwards). So far no such thing has been found and there's little incentive for Google to do it.

>>106406133
>there's little incentive for Google to do it.

R u sure about that?

>>106405930
Pixels haven’t had anything to do with AOSP for like 5 years you mong. They’re not the reference device anymore, they’re the Google device running a closed-source vendor ROM where most of Google’s Android development goes while AOSP is barely kept on life support.

>>106404847
The developers are also being backdoored

>>106406188
Yes. They would need to expend tremendous engineering effort to recreate the Intel ME under mobile power constraints, all for no monetary incentive. Their approach to security-conscious users is instead the "Advanced Protection Program", which kills app sideloading and enables extra monitoring for your Google account (aka forced Google Play usage and extra data collection).

>>106406200
They're the hardware Google internally develops and tests AOSP on. I will concede that they may not be the true "reference device" anymore, since their device-specific support trees are no longer public. But they are still the "example" the AOSP team points towards for a correct Android implementation.

>>106404405 (OP)
Apple's the best for security. It just werks.
Look at why ICEBlock avoids Android.
https://www.iceblock.app/android

>>106406246
Okay anon, I’m sorry I called you a mong, that was uncalled forfor.

>>106404405 (OP)
i installed it 3 years ago now in some used pixel 6 cuz i didn't want targeted ads/news. I forget I think every time i overswiped to left in the homescreen I was met with ads and suggested stuff i talked about. I barely use my phones anymore

>>106406260
It's certainly the next best thing, and the best option if you need to run e.g. banking apps or other "high-security" apps that refuse to support GrapheneOS hardware attestation.

The stuff about push notifications is just patently false though. Push Notifications inherently require some kind of device identifier to route the notifications, otherwise, how would it know where to deliver the notification? Apple's APNS also requires a device identifier, and supports both classic "device tokens" and JWTs:

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/sending-push-notifications-using-command-line-tools

On Android, Push Notifications are traditionally implemented using Google's Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM), which requires Google Mobile Services to be installed on the device. It's essentially a multiplex connection that saves battery by only having one idle connection to receive all push notifications, instead of many per each individual app.

There's a modern, decentralized alternative to FCM, called UnifiedPush, that can use a designated background app to multiplex the connection instead of Google Mobile Services. It supports many apps ("distributors") and you can decide which one will be responsible for delivering you the notifications. Alternatively you can self-host your own. Although do consider that you could be deanonymized by your distributor, since if only a few people use a distributor it can be used as a fingerprinting vector. https://unifiedpush.org/

>>106406263
:^)

Reminder that the last anti-GOS thread died immediately after >>106403330 was posted

>>106404405 (OP)
Just use an iPhone

>>106404405 (OP)
I don't care. I'll keep using it until the information comes out.

>>106406534
Apple ID is a much lesser evil than stock Android + Google account for Google Play. It's the next best thing after GrapheneOS. It's fairly obvious, I don't think there is anything to dispute here.
If you want any big tech mobile service (in-app purchases, contactless payments, running apps that require hardware attestation, etc), the best option is to not use it at all and find an alternative. The next best option is Apple. Then everyone else. Then Google.

>>106404405 (OP)
>privacy based os
>only works with google's binary firmware blobs from pixel

>>106406534
>>106406613
See >>106406519

>>106404405 (OP)
>privacy obsessed schizo
>still part of the babylonian system

>>106404405 (OP)
What's HarmonyOS like?

For privacy
No phone >>>>Dumbphone >>>>>>> CustomROM/iOS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shit >>>>>>>> Android

>>106404405 (OP)
>I must escape Google surveillance by buying a Google phone
Are people really this dumb? Obviously the Hardware has something in it.

>>106406715
Fully agree, but I would put custom ROM in a tier above iOS, since it doesn't require (or even allow) signing into accounts to download 3rd-party apps.

Also to an extent it depends on your definition of "privacy" and what your threat model is. For example if you only use the phone to receive normie SMS and calls (no messenger apps), then yes, dumbphone is the best.

But the second you want private messaging, dumbphones drop to the bottom, since SMS cannot and will never support E2EE, and GSM calls are only encrypted in transit to the radio tower.

>>106406699
From my knowledge, it was a proprietary AOSP fork with Huawei mobile services instead of Google, that then later switched to its own microkernel (which is very based btw, GrapheneOS plans to do this also but it's a very long-term goal). Assuming they keep most of the userspace intact (using their "kernel abstraction layer"), it would be the exact same, or similar, amount of information exposed, except with Huawei processing the information instead of Google. So it would fall under the same level of privacy as Google's Android. But I wasn't able to find much info on (the new microkernel-based) HarmonyOS, so take it with a grain of salt.

>>106406799
See >>106406133
And >>106406246

>>106405335
שתמש באתר יא מפגר
או יותר טוב, שים זין על האזעקות והמשך כרגיל

>>106407064
Demonic language

>>106406715
no, iOS belongs at the end, it deserves zero fucking trust.

>>106404405 (OP)
Well the good news is that it will be required if you wanna install anything on android

>>106407193
i can't fucking believe we got to this point lmao

>>106404405 (OP)
Who was the dev that got drafted? Russian or Ukrainian?
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/21819-impact-of-ongoing-war-on-grapheneos-development

>>106406133
>there's little incentive for Google to do it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thanks for the good laugh.

>>106407345
>companies competing between each other over whose device gets to be used by glowie agencies and recommended by security experts all over the world
>"they will make it have a magic chip that sends all the info to the jeeeews!"

>>106407345
See >>106406246

>>106407367
>>106407371
>I can’t trust Google so I’m going to buy a Google phone.
>”t…t…they just wouldn’t do that ok!!!”

>>106407367
I bet you think WhatsApp messages are encrypted and unscanned as well.

>>106407414
I trust Google. I trust them to steal my data and I trust them to make secure phones. That's why I've bought one.

>>106404405 (OP)
If you're trusting somebody else to depozz it for you, you're not schizo enough.

>>106404405 (OP)
privacy schizos are insane. just millennials used to the old internet reminiscing about the good old days. it's time to move on.

>glowies rolling in now that the conversations ended and the thread has calmed
lol

>>106407414
It's not that I trust them to not do it, it's that the instant they would do it, it would be painfully obvious.
The firmware size of critical components would jump from like 4 or 8 MiB to at least 20-30 MiB to include a full networking and/or modem stack to facilitate data exfiltration, with lots new added communication between different hardware components.
Existing components like GPU and baseband have large firmwares already, but they're fully isolated from the rest of the system via IOMMU and physically can't do anything other than their intended purpose, no matter what firmware you flash onto it, due to IOMMU memory protections.
And in case the size increase isn't enough, disassembling it would immediately reveal its functionality.
Google doesn't bother encrypting its firmware unlike Apple (mostly because there isn't much to encrypt anyway).

>>106405600
just login via the browser. why tf do you retards need an app that does the exact same shit as just opening vanadium (graphene's fork of chrome) and logging in through the website. half of the time the app won't work anyway due to integrity check. Literally just login through the website in the browser. It's the exact same shit

>>106405379
Anom the greatest filter of all time
>yeah bro privacy phone err this company just sells them to us
And you trust that shit?
>mmmmmmmmmmmm meth
You didn't answer my question
>what sorry too busy getting a punch on at the local pub
Retards.
If you aren't encrypting your communications yourself it cannot be trusted. It's that fucking simple.

>>106407510
>physically can't do anything other than their intended purpose
You literally have no idea if this is true or not. It’s closed.

While G****e is a evil company that only wants your data, that doesn't mean we can't use their really good hardware for our own gain.

Plus the fact that Graphene OS makes the glowies mad tells you all you need to know.

>>106408252
>makes the glowies mad
Yeah, they’d never lie to us.

>>106408259
The constant attacks and smear campaigns against Graphene from governments around the world say otherwise

>>106408313
Any proof of these? Oh right, let me guess, only in your mind.

>>106408252
>Really good hardware

>The Redditor claims that these devices are bricked in one of four ways: when users try “switching slots,” flashing certain Android ROMs, downgrading the OS, or after installing the June 2025 update. The latter issue is particularly concerning as it suggests that some older phones might be bricked due to Google’s own update.

https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-phones-bricked-3591218/

>>106408313
So I’m going to assume no proof?

>>106405224
>our boy
>louie
Louis rossman is a retard, and a faggot.

>>106406601
How about using no account at all for privacy reasons?

>>106406601
>It's fairly obvious, I don't think there is anything to dispute here.
Actually yes, when you claim this sort of shit you should explain yourself.

>>106405850
Literally all I'm waiting on is swapping the navigation button order. Which apparently is supposed to be in android 16 in December. So it'll filter down through AOSP to GrapheneOS.

>>106404405 (OP)
The devs of GrapheneOS are autistic enough for me to put my full faith in them.
I've been using it on my pixel 6a for a few months and I'm surprised at how stable it is, and just how many things work. Every app I have works with the only issue being that I can't install my work apps on my phone, but that's not a requirement for me so it's alright.

>>106404434
Oh, son of a

>>106404434
Take a look at the star >>106404432

>>106407064
ישוע המשיח הוא בן האלוהים ואין דרך לגן עדן אלא דרכו.

Good morning sirs

>>106408147
Everything is open source if you know assembly.

>>106408509
>>106410447
NTA but cops in some countries literally say GrapheneOS is only used by criminals now, and anyone with a Pixel becomes a suspect for drug crime. Of course this can be mitigated simply by using a phone case.

>>106410484
>>106410503
Yes. To me the order is pretty obvious: GrapheneOS, no account required nor supported >>> iOS, account required with (some) tracking >>> (everything else, e.g. KaiOS or Windows Phone if anyone even still uses that) >> Google's Android, account required with even more tracking

>>106411261
>>106411276
>I don't know what Graphene is

>>106411374
>Windows Phone
I disagree, Windows is just as horrible at tracking as Google and it's been outdated since forever. Also you can't expect to have any anonymity since their phones looked different and obviously the user agent/browser version would be a dead give away. At least they had removable batteries though.

>>106411479
It was more of a joke, but I semi-agree. FWIW Windows Phones had custom ROMs too, although there weren't any notable ones other than random hacks and patches people did for fun.

You can't expect anonymity or privacy, but IMO they are still slightly (marginally) better than Google, because Google sends your location, speed of movement, and detected type of movement (walking, biking, driving, etc) as part of their Location History feature (Microsoft had no such feature at the time, not sure about now. Apple has it but it's only saved on-device). They even go further and send device IDs before you even sign into a Google account:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/03/android-devices-track-you-before-you-even-sign-in

Windows Phone died right in the middle of Microsoft heavily ramping up surveillance in later Windows 10 updates, and before Windows 11, which tries to completely force a Microsoft account for everyone. So that's why I still see it as slightly better, but not much. Apple is way ahead of both, simply by measuring the amount of data sent/received and number of connections opened to by the device while idle on the home screen. GrapheneOS of course completely mogs Apple, so does LineageOS and other ROMs, but they require you to manually set up keys for verified boot, while GrapheneOS is secure by default.

>>106410447
I fell asleep...
But yeah, >>106411374 said it before I could.

>>106410868
This^

>>106405600
>How do you survive with Graphene when basically all of the apps that matter require GMS or Play Integrity
Maybe don't live in spain or transnistria then. My banks work fine.

>>106406033
>The intended way to kill radio communication is Airplane Mode, which has been verified to correctly disable all radio communication entirely on all supported devices.
can you provide a source for that? as far as i'm aware it hasn't been verified but no one claiming the opposite could back it up with proof

>>106404405 (OP)
I like some of what it does, but I need root for some things so I'll live without it. I appreciate that they keep things up to date though.

>>106412853
You can verify yourself. Turn on airplane mode, connect your phone to your computer, enable adb, and run:
adb shell dumpsys telephony.registry | grep mServiceState | grep -o "mDataRegState=[()0-9A-Z_]*"

Then check the output against the following URL:
>https://developer.android.com/reference/android/telephony/ServiceState
It will report STATE_POWER_OFF if it's completely powered off. Some phones don't power off the radio in airplane mode but instead just disable it, in which case it will report STATE_OUT_OF_SERVICE. That means it's still on just disabled.

>>106406033
>>106412853
FYI its known that when pixel 1-7+ phones power on they have a burst of network activity for a fraction of a second before the airplane mode kicks in. Someone on the forums tested it. Pixel phones enable their radio when starting up regardless of software. So while its respected in software in practice its not entirely disabled
source: search the forum

>>106413092
Yes. Because the airplane mode is persisted at the OS level, so it has to recognize the modem, load the persisted settings, and then power it off. In the time between the device being set up and its settings getting loaded it will be briefly powered on.

But at such an early stage in the boot process no sensitive information can be leaked, unless you consider "having a phone with a Qualcomm (<= 5) or Exynos (>=6) modem" (which is as much info that can be sent as the modem isn't fully set up yet) sensitive information.

We must face The Watcher bravely. We should not be afraid of Its gaze. Only through Observance there is transcendance.

>>106404405 (OP)
I just want to install what I want
If it comes with privacy then why would I complain?

>>106413092
are you referencing this thread?
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24685-are-there-any-cellular-radio-connections-on-startup-if-airplane-mode-is-enabled

>>106404405 (OP)
>>106404458
Anons should stop asking questions and thinking with logic, statistics and other proof. Instead, we all should use latest iPhone, Windows 11 and Cloudflare. Also Librewolf sounds weird, we should use Google Brave LGBT Chromium instead to maximize our privacy, because Brave is proprietary (no reproducible binaries, fake unrelated source code, impossible to compile) and this way nobody can manipulate it.

>look it up since google are getting even more retarded
>I need to buy google hardware to use the OS
It feels like a scam

>>106405850
this is why im not a fan of switching to a custom ROM and instead would rather minimize jewgle's spyware on my phone (oneplus 13) as much as possible

>>106413458
>Librewolf
Brave beats pretty much every other browser in terms of tracking protection, including Librewolf. I was once on Librewolf's side but the results speak for themselves.

>Brave is proprietary
Are you brain damaged?

Has Micay started defending Google's blocking of sideloading yet?