Misschien toch eens GrapheneOS gaan installeren.
"GrapheneOS haalt servers weg uit Frankrijk: 'Land is niet veilig voor open source' - Security.NL"
Ik heb het bericht van @GrapheneOS even opgezocht:
Ik twijfel erg omdat banking apps vaak problemen geven. En dat is wel een van mijn belangrijkste.
@harld @janvlug @GrapheneOS Voor die banking apps op Graphene is er een mooi overzicht. Mijn grootste bezwaar is dat ik dan een Pixel zou moeten aanschaffen hiervoor - en daar heb ik geen zin in.
Ik wil ook niet een Google-telefoon aanschaffen om los te staan van big tech. Daarom gebruik ik een #Librem5. Dat geeft wel wat ongemak, maar ik heb mijn vrijheid. Purism is écht volledig gericht op #privacy, #security en #FOSS (#opensource).
Bankieren bij #ASNBank doe ik voornamelijk via de webbrowser met de #browsercode. Alleen grote bedragen kan zo niet. Daarvoor en ook voor identificatie moe(s)t in naar een kantoor. Ik moet nog overschrijfformulieren aanvragen.
@janvlug @patrick @harld Librem 5 devices have extraordinarily poor privacy and security for hardware, firmware and software compared to a mainstream device such as an iPhone. Their devices have a regular closed source SoC (CPU, GPU, etc.) but it's ancient and doesn't provide modern security protections along with them not setting up basic security protections. The other components including memory, touchscreen, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, etc. are all closed source. It's not open as claimed.
@janvlug @patrick @harld Many people buy used devices to use GrapheneOS. The most recent 3 generations (Pixel 8, 9 and 10) have 7 years of proper support from launch. See https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private for a major example of an OEM claiming to provide long term updates while not really doing it. Fairphone 5 kernel is end-of-life in December 2025 and the Fairphone 4 kernel was end-of-life in 2024 along with the basic backports and vendor patches being delayed 1-2 months despite early access to those.
@GrapheneOS it's interesting to see in this discussion how wildly different meanings different people assign to the words "security" and "privacy".
When you say that an iPhone is good for security and privacy, that sounds completely crazy to me. Let me explain why.
An iPhone user is completely owned by Apple. An iPhone user therefore has no privacy, and also no security. An iPhone user does not even attempt to achieve privacy or security.
Do you see what I mean?
@eliasr @janvlug @patrick @harld Your post isn't talking about either privacy or security. If you use a Fairphone with /e/, then you're trusting Fairphone and Murena who have both shown they do not take privacy and security seriously and mislead users about it. /e/ sends user data to OpenAI without consent for speech-to-text while Apple does that locally without a service. This is representative of the overall approach to privacy or lack thereof in /e/ without basic privacy/security patches.
@GrapheneOS I'm not talking about /e/ -- what I would like to understand is why you promote Apple so much.
That surprises me, because GrapheneOS is to my understanding FOSS, so I thought you had an understanding of why that's important.
Why is it so important for you to portray Apple's iphone as "secure" and "private"?
I'm repeating myself here, but an iPhone user is completely owned by Apple. How can that be acceptable to you?
@eliasr @janvlug @patrick @harld GrapheneOS is a non-profit open source project which exists to protect people's privacy and security. Providing accurate info is an important part. The purpose of our project is not advancing ideological beliefs about software development and software licensing. /e/ is an extraordinarily insecure and non-private OS which exists to enrich the founders of Murena by misleading people about what it. It's unsafe and people using it are putting their data at risk.
@eliasr @janvlug @patrick @harld It's important for us to provide accurate information about privacy and security, which we're doing. We won't mislead people into believing an iPhone is a poor option for privacy and security because it isn't one. Fairphones and the Librem 5 are both closed source hardware with closed source firmware. If you believe closed source is incompatible with privacy, how can you promote closed source hardware/firmware products? The core component (SoC) is fully closed.
@eliasr @janvlug @patrick @harld Closed source SoC with a closed source CPU, GPU, etc. including the chips included as part of a traditional motherboard. Closed source SSD, memory, touchscreen, battery, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular and other radios, etc.
Fairphones and Librem 5 devices have very poor security. Separately from that, they're closed source, which is not the cause of their poor security but rather a separate thing.
Open source does not imply or provide privacy or security itself.
Thanks for the replies, but you are still not answering my question.
An iPhone user is completely owned by Apple. How can that be acceptable to you?
You say you want to provide accurate info, but to me it seems you are actually deceiving people by pretending that it does not matter that someone else has root access on their devices.
Apple has enormous control over their users, it's really bad. I still don't understand why you are defending Apple.
1/2
@eliasr @janvlug @patrick @harld
> But the position you are taking here is deeply ideological and political.
No, it isn't.
> You defend a world order where a single central authority (Apple) has complete power over people.
We've said nothing of the kind and that has little bearing to reality.
> Apparently you want people to think that they have "privacy" and "security" when they are under central control in that way.
The same thing exists for the products you want to promote.
@eliasr @janvlug @patrick @harld
> An iPhone user is completely owned by Apple. How can that be acceptable to you?
It's little different from saying users of Fairphone devices are owned by them because they make the closed source hardware and firmware with strictly higher privileges than the software. It has very poor security though.
> someone else has root access on their devices.
This applies to the products you're promoting both in terms of hardware/firmware and software on top...
@eliasr @GrapheneOS @janvlug @patrick @harld
If you dont like apple so much do use them its pretty simple what does arguing with a team actually focused on helping people with privacy and security actually accomplishing graphene os is doing legit work in privacy and security and your actually crying like a baby over your view that they support some central controling apple world like its a joke id love to see your private secure phone your working on.
@GrapheneOS you wrote:
> The purpose of our project is not advancing ideological beliefs
But the position you are taking here is deeply ideological and political.
You defend a world order where a single central authority (Apple) has complete power over people. Apparently you want people to think that they have "privacy" and "security" when they are under central control in that way.
You are entitled to your opinion, but do not pretend it's not ideological.
2/2
@janvlug @patrick @harld