7 ms·

Wow. That really is an unpopular opinion (well, on HN at least). Thanks for being willing to share. > They know what it takes to keep it secure. I have yet to

Wow. That really is an unpopular opinion (well, on HN at least). Thanks for being willing to share. > They know what it takes to keep it secure. I have yet to see anything properly supporting this. There's still malware for phones, and I don't trust either of the app stores. In addition, Google especially -- but also Apple -- either exfiltrate way more info off of phones then I am comfortable with, or do a poor job of preventing others from doing so [0]. Personally, I would trust PMOS or a hand rolled installation of Alpine more than I trust either Google or Apple on both security and privacy. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/23/apple-ios14-release-iphone-11-pro-update-ipad-upgrade-security/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/23/apple-ios...

systemvoltage 6y ago
Sure, thanks for responding. > There's still malware for phones, and I don't trust either of the app stores I feel like it is to do with scale more than anything. There are millions if not billions of people using iPhones. There are millions of apps in the App store. If for example, Ubuntu made a phone that was handed out to billion+ people, I expect worse if not complete catastrophe. I know it is weird to say a closed door's company is more trustworthy than an open one, I support out-in-open development of things like OpenSSH and cryptolibs; I just don't see it in a relative sense. All other options IMO are worse. Pine64 and Ubuntu would sell out instantly if I had a few million dollars to throw at them. Amazon essentially has Canonical out on a leash - Amazon integration in Ubuntu is absolutely cancerous. I imagine the entire Ad-tech industry of the size of a Aircraft carrier and Pine64/Ubuntu the size of a toy boat, they would buy people out left and right to get access to large number of users if Pine64 gets traction. Instead of harping on the negatives, if Pine64 guys can get huge amounts of funding (and employ smart people), have bounties for security bugs, and can win my trust with custom silicon and hardware encryption, prove themselves to be against Ad-tech industry, put customer privacy first, etc; I am onboard!
- Shared404 6y ago
  A reasonable stance. > I feel like it is to do with scale more than anything. There are millions if not billions of people using iPhones. There are millions of apps in the App store. If for example, Ubuntu made a phone that was handed out to billion+ people, I expect worse if not complete catastrophe. Indeed. I do think that Linux based phones are definitely not there yet for the average user. I would feel confident setting up and using something on the PinePhone for myself, but would not trust millions/billions of people to do so, with the current software options. > I know it is weird to say a closed door's company is more trustworthy than an open one, I support out-in-open development of things like OpenSSH and cryptolibs; I just don't see it in a relative sense. All other options IMO are worse. Pine64 and Ubuntu would sell out instantly if I had a few million dollars to throw at them. Ubuntu for sure I agree with. I do still use an Ubuntu derivative, but only because System76 has shown themselves to be willing to make changes from base Ubuntu where necessary. I've participated a small amount in the Pine64 community, and honestly get the sense that they are in the business to push for better/more open hardware. > Instead of harping on the negatives, if Pine64 guys can get huge amounts of funding (and employ smart people), have bounties for security bugs, and can win my trust with custom silicon and hardware encryption, prove themselves to be against Ad-tech industry, put customer privacy first, etc; I am onboard! Here's hoping. I think it is a possibility, and quite likely the best possible outcome for consumer electronics.
vinay427 6y ago
Something as (conceptually) simple as verified boot is lacking on PMOS. I think the PinePhone has obvious uses, which is why I have one, but for security I think hardened versions of something like Android which has been studied are a better bet, and these can be completely de-Googled for privacy reasons as well.
- Shared404 6y ago
  Also a reasonable, and possibly better path for many use cases. I like GrapheneOS a lot as a concept, no Pixel hardware to test with though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ThenAsNow 6y ago
  > these can be completely de-Googled Is there actually an easy way to do this? There are so many places in the Android sources where uses of google servers, services, etc. are baked-in. Even one of the "de-Googled" Chromium forks has to do some hacky stuff to ensure requests to google servers generated by internal request don't pass through. I mean, it's not technically impossible, but I suspect you mean something much narrower than just "never connects to a google server unless you explicitly request it to".
  - Shared404 6y ago
    You may want to check out /e/ [0], LineageOS [1], and GrapheneOS [2]. All of these have different focuses, but I believe they all work pretty hard to avoid Google. [0] https://e.foundation https://e.foundation [1] https://lineageos.org/ https://lineageos.org/ [2] https://grapheneos.org/ https://grapheneos.org/
    - ThenAsNow 6y ago
      I've spent some time with the GrapheneOS sources and found quite a few places where the connections to google servers are baked in, like Camera and Gallery reaching out to google maps, the use of Google SUPL servers which has no real alternative at the moment, or hardcoded Google DNS or NTP server IPs. Maybe the e folks have done all this thorough de-Googling, but the Google developers clearly write Android without thinking twice about tying some piece of code to their servers and systems. It's deeply ingrained in both existing code and Google devs' mentality, and quite depressing if one is serious about de-Googling in the sense of never connecting to a Google server unless by explicit action of the user. This is why phrases like "completely de-Googled" are frustrating and likely misleading - superficial de-Googling is possible, but I haven't yet seen evidence of deep de-Googling on any Android derivative. I'm heartened to read what's now at: https://grapheneos.org/#never-google-services https://grapheneos.org/#never-google-services , but there's a major sentence that's aspirational rather than reflecting reality: "Text-to-speech, voice-to-text, non-GPS-based location services, geocoding, accessibility services, etc. are examples of other open Android APIs where we need to develop/bundle an implementation based on existing open source projects." Also given the pace of Android development, maintaining patches that strip out Google references will be a non-trivial endeavor. Let alone finding every new insertion of access to a Google system. After diving into this issue, I came away more convinced that we need projects like the PinePhone and mobile-capable versions of Linux applications/environments to succeed if we want more control over what our devices are doing and to whom they provide data. Unfortunately, I suspect it is still quite some time away before we can reliably do relatively simple stuff on an open source-based phone as a daily driver that is table stakes on Android/iphone today.

systemvoltage 6y ago

Sure, thanks for responding. > There's still malware for phones, and I don't trust either of the app stores I feel like it is to do with scale more than anything. There are millions if not billions of people using iPhones. There are millions of apps in the App store. If for example, Ubuntu made a phone that was handed out to billion+ people, I expect worse if not complete catastrophe. I know it is weird to say a closed door's company is more trustworthy than an open one, I support out-in-open development of things like OpenSSH and cryptolibs; I just don't see it in a relative sense. All other options IMO are worse. Pine64 and Ubuntu would sell out instantly if I had a few million dollars to throw at them. Amazon essentially has Canonical out on a leash - Amazon integration in Ubuntu is absolutely cancerous. I imagine the entire Ad-tech industry of the size of a Aircraft carrier and Pine64/Ubuntu the size of a toy boat, they would buy people out left and right to get access to large number of users if Pine64 gets traction. Instead of harping on the negatives, if Pine64 guys can get huge amounts of funding (and employ smart people), have bounties for security bugs, and can win my trust with custom silicon and hardware encryption, prove themselves to be against Ad-tech industry, put customer privacy first, etc; I am onboard!

Shared404 6y ago
A reasonable stance. > I feel like it is to do with scale more than anything. There are millions if not billions of people using iPhones. There are millions of apps in the App store. If for example, Ubuntu made a phone that was handed out to billion+ people, I expect worse if not complete catastrophe. Indeed. I do think that Linux based phones are definitely not there yet for the average user. I would feel confident setting up and using something on the PinePhone for myself, but would not trust millions/billions of people to do so, with the current software options. > I know it is weird to say a closed door's company is more trustworthy than an open one, I support out-in-open development of things like OpenSSH and cryptolibs; I just don't see it in a relative sense. All other options IMO are worse. Pine64 and Ubuntu would sell out instantly if I had a few million dollars to throw at them. Ubuntu for sure I agree with. I do still use an Ubuntu derivative, but only because System76 has shown themselves to be willing to make changes from base Ubuntu where necessary. I've participated a small amount in the Pine64 community, and honestly get the sense that they are in the business to push for better/more open hardware. > Instead of harping on the negatives, if Pine64 guys can get huge amounts of funding (and employ smart people), have bounties for security bugs, and can win my trust with custom silicon and hardware encryption, prove themselves to be against Ad-tech industry, put customer privacy first, etc; I am onboard! Here's hoping. I think it is a possibility, and quite likely the best possible outcome for consumer electronics.

vinay427 6y ago

Something as (conceptually) simple as verified boot is lacking on PMOS. I think the PinePhone has obvious uses, which is why I have one, but for security I think hardened versions of something like Android which has been studied are a better bet, and these can be completely de-Googled for privacy reasons as well.

Shared404 6y ago
Also a reasonable, and possibly better path for many use cases. I like GrapheneOS a lot as a concept, no Pixel hardware to test with though.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ThenAsNow 6y ago
> these can be completely de-Googled Is there actually an easy way to do this? There are so many places in the Android sources where uses of google servers, services, etc. are baked-in. Even one of the "de-Googled" Chromium forks has to do some hacky stuff to ensure requests to google servers generated by internal request don't pass through. I mean, it's not technically impossible, but I suspect you mean something much narrower than just "never connects to a google server unless you explicitly request it to".
- Shared404 6y ago
  You may want to check out /e/ [0], LineageOS [1], and GrapheneOS [2]. All of these have different focuses, but I believe they all work pretty hard to avoid Google. [0] https://e.foundation https://e.foundation [1] https://lineageos.org/ https://lineageos.org/ [2] https://grapheneos.org/ https://grapheneos.org/
  - ThenAsNow 6y ago
    I've spent some time with the GrapheneOS sources and found quite a few places where the connections to google servers are baked in, like Camera and Gallery reaching out to google maps, the use of Google SUPL servers which has no real alternative at the moment, or hardcoded Google DNS or NTP server IPs. Maybe the e folks have done all this thorough de-Googling, but the Google developers clearly write Android without thinking twice about tying some piece of code to their servers and systems. It's deeply ingrained in both existing code and Google devs' mentality, and quite depressing if one is serious about de-Googling in the sense of never connecting to a Google server unless by explicit action of the user. This is why phrases like "completely de-Googled" are frustrating and likely misleading - superficial de-Googling is possible, but I haven't yet seen evidence of deep de-Googling on any Android derivative. I'm heartened to read what's now at: https://grapheneos.org/#never-google-services https://grapheneos.org/#never-google-services , but there's a major sentence that's aspirational rather than reflecting reality: "Text-to-speech, voice-to-text, non-GPS-based location services, geocoding, accessibility services, etc. are examples of other open Android APIs where we need to develop/bundle an implementation based on existing open source projects." Also given the pace of Android development, maintaining patches that strip out Google references will be a non-trivial endeavor. Let alone finding every new insertion of access to a Google system. After diving into this issue, I came away more convinced that we need projects like the PinePhone and mobile-capable versions of Linux applications/environments to succeed if we want more control over what our devices are doing and to whom they provide data. Unfortunately, I suspect it is still quite some time away before we can reliably do relatively simple stuff on an open source-based phone as a daily driver that is table stakes on Android/iphone today.