8 ms·

The main issue appears to be that as per the blueprint user MUST use one of the mandated handsets (iPhone or Android with pre-installed and privileged Google Se

The main issue appears to be that as per the blueprint user MUST use one of the mandated handsets (iPhone or Android with pre-installed and privileged Google Services) and: - MUST use either Google or Apple account - must not be banned by the provider or sanctioned in the USA These issues have been flagged to the devs working on the blueprint since the inception, only to be handwaved away. Getting banned can happen randomly even if you're not doing anything illegal or wrong (it's enough for a robot to decide you're within the blast radius), getting sanctioned can happen if you're an UN lawyer investigating human rights abuses USA actually likes. So I do see a problem here.

goobatrooba 6mo ago
The technical specifications published online foresee publication of the app also on alternative android stores, but Linux phone users are missing out. Though I guess things could always be extended...
- summm 6mo ago
  Their security model requires remote attestation. So, open, user-controlled platforms cannot be used. Of course some other future locked-down linux-based OS might be usable.
  - subscribed 6mo ago
    Remote attestation in theory includes all aosp-compliant attestation implementations (in practice that's GrapheneOS already), but the current project plans and implementation openly reject it.
    - summm 6mo ago
      Only "open" in a twisted sense, and definitely not user-controlled: Remote attestation per definition means to accept only pre-approved operating systems. If anybody builds an implementation, regardless whether it is aosp-compliant or not, this will be excluded, until the App developer or someone in the chain explicitly approves that implementation. That is the whole purpose of that technology. Including GrapheneOS in that pre-approved list just shifts power from Google and the App Developer to GrapheneOS Developers and the App Developer. Nice for GraphenOS, still bad for users and devs of any other OS variant or platform.

goobatrooba 6mo ago

The technical specifications published online foresee publication of the app also on alternative android stores, but Linux phone users are missing out. Though I guess things could always be extended...

summm 6mo ago
Their security model requires remote attestation. So, open, user-controlled platforms cannot be used. Of course some other future locked-down linux-based OS might be usable.
- subscribed 6mo ago
  Remote attestation in theory includes all aosp-compliant attestation implementations (in practice that's GrapheneOS already), but the current project plans and implementation openly reject it.
  - summm 6mo ago
    Only "open" in a twisted sense, and definitely not user-controlled: Remote attestation per definition means to accept only pre-approved operating systems. If anybody builds an implementation, regardless whether it is aosp-compliant or not, this will be excluded, until the App developer or someone in the chain explicitly approves that implementation. That is the whole purpose of that technology. Including GrapheneOS in that pre-approved list just shifts power from Google and the App Developer to GrapheneOS Developers and the App Developer. Nice for GraphenOS, still bad for users and devs of any other OS variant or platform.